Agriculture was the foundation of territorial possession, and the original cause of property. It was of no use to secure to the farmer the fruit of his labor, unless the means of production were at the same time secured to him. To fortify the weak against the invasion of the strong, to suppress spoliation and fraud, the necessity was felt of establishing between possessors permanent lines of division, insuperable obstacles.
it's probably true that agriculture is a necessary precondition for property. it doesn't really make sense to talk about things like individual land ownership if you're a hunter-gatherer. but are there examples of agricultural societies that didn't create property?
The concept that agriculture is a necessity for property or sedentism has been disproven a while ago. Pacific Northwestern nations like the Tlingit or Haida have achieved such a life through the abundance of local food resources as well as sufficient storage techniques. Game animals, Salmon runs, shellfish mariculture and other resources, as well as the usage of western redcedar tree has made the "requirement" for agriculture null. Furthermore, these nations have a complex system of property and property ownership, and they have laws that protect property rights. I raise instead that agriculture served to cause population booms, as a sedentary lifestyle combined with one that is abundant in resources(without much fear of drying local resources) would have likely lead to a faster population increase. Thus, the big cities and later countries could be established, as food concern compared to population could be solved by just increasing food yield.












