This is perhaps one of the most volatile cases to come to the Augustan court in a long time, not because it is dealing with a particularly troubling event, just a minor property dispute, but because there are a variety of factors that are involved that have the potential to lead to problems later on, or to assertions that the court is not as unbiased as we strive to be. I’ll go ahead and lay these factors during this write up, and I ask that the reader glance over them and keep them in mind as they read the remainder of the case notes.

The assertion here is that Tea’s home had a garden next to it and that both the garden and the home itself were clearly marked and, as such, subject to the “four block rule,” a long held principle of Augustan property law that states that unless permission is given by the owner of a property, neighbouring developments must maintain a minimum of four blocks of separation. Claims in Mount Augusta go from bedrock to sky limit, and so this separation will always be calculated as the horizontal separation between the two structures. There is no set way of demarcating property, but in the past, the court has held that the Augustan view of property stems loosely from the ideas of Philosopher John Rawls, who claimed that property is created when a person mixes their labour with the world. To put it simply, you cannot own a tree in a forest, but if you planted that tree, or if you were to cut that tree into logs, you have mixed your labour with it and it subsequently becomes property. It is apparent then that buildings and structures fall clearly into this category with very few exceptions. It is possible too that non-structures could satisfy this definition provided that labour has been mixed with existing objects or new objects have been brought in and intentionally placed on the land. A garden, a man made lake, or a managed forest could all satisfy this definition of property. The problem then becomes this:

If a garden, a man made lake, or a managed forest satisfy the definition of property, how are they to be recognized as such when, in purpose, they may seek to mimic the appearance of a naturally generated area?

The easiest answer is that they should be marked as such, but that also brings up a fair amount of questions:

What constitutes sufficient marking? Do the borders have to be clearly marked?

The constitution doesn’t really address this. As a matter of fact, it refers primarily to “structures,” however what a structure is in Minecraft really is up for interpretation, especially considering that everything is made out of blocks. Making a list of “approved structural blocks and shapes would constitute a massive overreach of governmental power.

Additionally, what amount of labour must be mixed with land in order for something to be considered property. I obviously cannot bonemeal every unclaimed block in MTA claims and declare it my property. This is actually a more nuanced question, because the amount of modification constituting property is contextual. Flattening land and leaving it sit may not be enough to constitute a valid claim within the city, however, if the same were to happen in the remotest reaches of Augustan claims, where tons of land is available, the argument could be made that using that land without first derilecting it could be seen as a form of “theft of labour” against the flattener of the land. Within the urban areas of MTA, it is best practise to derilect any piece of land on which you intend to build. If there really was a nice big piece of useable land near the city center, don’t you think that it would have already been snatched up? When it comes down to it, the likelyhood is high that nearly every piece of land inside of the city has or had claims on it, even if those people are long gone, didn’t do much to develop the land and are unlikely to sue.

KSR constructed a structure that overlaps not only the edge of the roadway (roads are owned by those who constructed them under MTA law) but also violated the 4 block buffer with Tea’s basement where a large wall is visible. As to whether or not the garden was signed well enough, the existing evidence is insufficient for me to make a determination, however, it is clear that violations of property law did occur.

One of the things that worried me the most about this case was the nature of KSR’s building. The building contained (it has since disappeared) a large “1488” sign on the northern exterior. This is, by my understanding, a neo-nazi symbol. I want to be clear that this does not factor into the case at all for me. Mount Augustan law protects free speech, even if it is unpopular and violating that speech in one case puts us on a dangerous path to censorship.

It is the court’s opinion that KSR’s violation of Article IV was reckless rather than intentional.

Article IV Sec. A Subsections iii-iv iii. Plot ownership will extend from sky to bedrock within the plots’ space. If a new building shall be erected next to an existing one, there shall be a four (4) block buffer between the two structures. The two block buffer shall be considered the property of the structures’ builders unless an exception is made by law or mutually consenting exchange/contract with the adjoining plots party. iv. If the placement or nature of a structure violates a law the owner shall be given notice and forty-eight hours to correct it before ownership is automatically relinquished and the offending aspects of the structure may be destroyed. Failure to properly notify the owner or wait the allotted forty-eight hours before altering the offending property will be a violation of section 100.01 of the Augustan Criminal Code.

As the violation was reckless, rather than malicious, no end time will be given provided KSR does one of the following:

A. Pursuant to IV.A.iii KSR shall make a mutually consenting contract with Tea regarding the disputed blocks.

B. KSR may elect to remove portions of the structure that are in violation.

The court would like to stress once more, the incredibly low likelihood of finding unclaimed land next to the most busy roads in the city. To any non-involved parties reading this: do yourself, the court, and everyone else a favour and post a formal dereliction notice when building in an urban area. If nothing else, you will have a legal record of ownership going forward.