Land ownership is false since objects which are not of our own making can only be rented

We do not have a right to own land, we must (may) do so only with the consent of our neighbours, since we seek to exclude them and we did not make the land ourselves. No one should be given exclusive access to all of the land, otherwise the rest (of the population) end up as economic serfs, since they must rent land to live. Then, if no one can have all of the land no one can own any of the land, it can only be rented.

If we are sympathetic to our neighbours we will own only a modest quantity of land

The Government should not be a charity.

The aim of the Government should not be to help the poor, only to protect rights and perhaps to discourage the rich from owning too much property. It is a form of protection, and a defence of natural rights to enable resources to be made available at a cheap price. If land is too expensive the Government is able to tax landowners (not too much!) so that prices will fall. A tax on land is a justified intervention into the market as it would protect poor people. We can only reasonably use force if there is a good outcome.

It is a type of crime to fail to leave enough resources for the rest of the community. If in this way, we are selfish then we have committed a form of crime as it demonstrates a failure to be sympathetic to our neighbours.

A minimum quantity of land held by everyone would prevent economic serfdom and problems with onerous rents

Without land we cannot live, but if land is a natural right, this presents the practical problem of how to ensure everyone has land when it can be freely sold. If we can sell our land and then claim more, since it is our natural right it will be possible to live continually without having to pay for anything. If we are given land by Society, we can deduce that those who have made the land available do not want it to be sold, as this would no longer solve the problem of poverty for which the land was given. If people are prevented from selling their land, below a certain threshold, this ensures that donations of land are not wasted. The same outcome is achieved if the Government keeps aside a fund to make sure the money is not wasted, which enables the land to be sold and the individual is able to move to a different plot. If we are not able to have less than a particular level of wealth, land, to ensure that we can survive, guaranteed by the Government then the problem of economic serfdom and oppressive rents will disappear.

To better manage natural resources the Government can seize land from those who own an excess and sell it into the market

If someone owns an excess of land, to the extent that it violates the Lockean proviso, they are damaging their neighbours by needlessly depriving them of natural resources. Even though the landowner has not initiated a crime, they are harming the lives of others, to remedy this it is reasonable that the Government, representing the majority opinion take action. The Government can suggest that the owner sell their land, or at least a portion of it, failure to do so will result in the land being secured for the benefit of the State, who will then sell the land into the market, reducing prices. It is reasonable for the Government to seize the land to improve access to natural resources, for the bulk of the population.

If the Government fails to manage natural resources in this way, we might end up with a situation whereby a single person, or a small number of persons is able to rent out the land to the remainder of the population, causing them unnecessary hardship.

Land prices would be improved if the Government authorities seized land from the rich and sold it into the market

If land ownership is justified from a utilitarian perspective then, naturally, we seek to maximise the advantage for the most people. If land is being monopolised for a small number of people, so that a greater number have no choice but to pay rent, to survive, then the property structure has failed. In this scenario, the majority are justified to seize the land and may then sell it again, into the community. To prevent this, the original landowner is able to sell the land in anticipation of it being seized and consume the wealth.

If land is too expensive a possible remedy is to seize the land of those who own an excess and release it into the market, which will reduce prices. There is no reason why the Government should not seize the land of those who own an excess and sell it into the market.

It would improve prices for the Government to seize land and sell it into the market.

There is no reason for anyone to recognise land claims if they violate the Lockean proviso

If the Government does not impose a limit to Capital wealth, land prices will remain high and it will be difficult for younger generations to obtain property. An economic threshold exists whereby our spending falls below the achievable rental income from our property, and at that point we are able to constantly increase our wealth and property (if it is available for sale) without doing any real work. This is damaging to the economy, not only because, as a landlord, we now have no incentive to make a positive contribution but also because it makes land too expensive for the rest of the population. Without a land tax, property will constantly escalate in price as a greater and greater proportion of it falls into the hands of the landlord class.

Unfortunately, land is limited in extent, which means that it is possible to harm others indirectly by excluding them from natural property. It is considerate not to own too much land, but if people fail to show this thoughtfulness we have no obligation to respect their property claims.

We do not truly own land, because we have not created it. When the State sells, or makes available a piece of property they sell the recognition that they will eject other people, if desired, from the land if they trespass. The State has the right to refuse to protect the person, for whatever reason.

Past history is not a justification for land ownership if we are being tyrannical from an economic perspective to our neighbours and tenants

A ceiling on land ownership would give people more of an incentive to work because it would be possible for them to buy their own property and become free, hence reducing poverty. A form of serfdom results from unequal land ownership. Many people are poor for lack of access to Capital; our labour (our personal Capital) is worth very little because it can be sold for only a small amount of land. We are poor (assuming we would like more land, if we have no land) because land is so expensive.

We are wealthy if Capital is inexpensive, and so a Land Value Ceiling would create wealth and economic freedom, we would no longer be so reliant upon the State. It is a right of free people to place a disincentive against the property claims of others, as a matter of defence because they (the landless) are desperate for land. We cannot take care of our own affairs if we do not have sufficient land. The ballot box enables people to make a property claim on land currently owned by others.

If other wealthy people are able to retain their land, it makes giving up our own land less worthwhile.

An organised system of property rights allows people to spend less time defending their land, and is advantageous for that reason. To reach a compromise between people who each want the land available we must assume each has an equal claim, it is also true that we (most often) would rather have a certainty of some land than the chance of nothing. If we have no respect for existing land claims and what has gone before then everyone would, presumably, start with roughly equal plots or at least there would be a punitive ceiling. If we have absolute respect for what has gone before then nothing changes. It matters less that the incumbent landowner has lawfully acquired the property than that their ownership is detrimental to the existence of the rest of the population.

Property claims are nothing more than threats and negotiations

If someone 'owns' (an excess of) land this means that there is a perceived risk of forceful reprisals for people that venture to make use of the property. It is anti-social to make such threats if we have no legitimacy to do so. Someone who owns (or claims to own) an excess of land is making illegitimate death threats to the general population. We do not own land if we have no legitimate claim to it.

We have no right to own an excess of land

We make a property claim when we seek to remove other people from an area of land, or buildings, which they desire (to have) access to. If we make a false property claim this is seen as an act of aggression, as in the case of assault, or trespass. When we utilise natural resources we prevent others from doing so and we can assume they would prefer that we desist. If we agree to respect the property rights of other people, then it is reasonable that we, ourselves, enjoy the same advantage by being able to have exclusive access to some land. It provides the greatest utility if resources are shared roughly equally and so it is preferable for people to be able to claim their own property, by rejecting the property claims of others.

We not only have a right to claim our own property, but to question the claims of other people.

We should be allowed to own land only if it is not too much for our reasonable demands, as measured in relation to the needs of the rest of the population. The Government is defending the interests of the rich alone if it enables such an inequality of land ownership to continue. It is reasonable to defend only a limited amount of land and we have no right to own an excess of land.

It makes for a better use of resources if the rich are prevented from owning too much land

The problem with excessive land* ownership is that we have an obligation to make sure that our trade does not impoverish other people. When we buy something we have a duty to ensure that we are not buying the last piece of food from a hungry person, and we can do that by making sure that they have sufficient Capital. We can also make sure that the Society within which we live is still wealthy and that resources are properly allocated, and being an excessive landowner prevents that from being the case.

Being a person who owns an excess of property, specifically land, means that, partly because of our actions, we live in a Society which has not properly allocated resources, because of this we have a duty to ensure that we do not own too much land. The cause of inequality (and poor use of resources) is primarily those who own an excess of assets being allowed to do so, allied with their legal ability to acquire an excess of land.

*land in the generic sense, meaning that the concept may be extended to other natural resources that are limited in their abundance.

A Land Compensation Tax would reduce land inequality

A Land Compensation Tax would reduce land inequality.

Those who own an excess of land owe a tax or rental payment to others in compensation for their entitlement

It can be said that we owe compensation to others who are denied if we have owned, or continue to own, an excessive quantity of land, because this prevents others from having use of a natural resource to which they might rightly claim an entitlement. We own land only if others are satisfied at their compensation, or land ownership, otherwise we are being tyrannical and imposing unfair restrictions on our neighbours, which might lead to a form of economic serfdom, for them. To ameliorate this, compensation can be paid to make sure that we do not cause unnecessary suffering and are considerate of those around us.

A capital tax directed at land with sufficient personal allowance would remedy economic serfdom

Without intervention serfdom is a stable economic scenario for at least part of the population. Economic serfdom, as distinct from legal serfdom can exist in a situation where the individual has insufficient resources to survive and must rely on selling their labour, to those who have more than enough assets. Someone in this position can never alter their standing in life because those purchasing the labour earn more than they spend, through rental income, primarily of land; and so they will never sell their land in fact they are more likely to accumulate yet more. The labour of the serf is used to rent land or to purchase food to survive, there is none (not a significant amount) left over to save, they must pay to eat and have nothing meaningful left over. If land is not for sale at an affordable price, we, the serf, will rely upon either charity, renting land or selling our labour to eat and survive, none of which offer a route to escape their (our) position since they (we) remain landless.

If the (wealthy!) landowners do not want to sell their food, or rent their land, or be charitable, for whatever reason, we (the serf) will have nothing to eat, since to grow and produce food requires land. We then are a slave, not of legal provenance but due to our economic (capital) circumstances, our inheritance, we can refuse to comply without suffering violence (unlike a legal slave) but still we will starve so the outcome is comparable.

The only remedy to ameliorate this situation is to constrain land, capital ownership in some way, perhaps with a tax, but we must pay attention to the profitability of manufacturing food. If it becomes unprofitable to make food then everyone starves. A certain way to avoid this risk would be to ensure a generous personal allowance for land assets so that food can always be made at a profit.

If we have space we are not a burden on others

Arguments about land can equivalently be made about space, since it is limited.

If we have land we are not a burden on others

We will not (be allowed to) become a burden on others if we are prevented from selling land such that after doing so we would have insufficient to live independently.

It should be impossible to sell land such that by doing so, we would have an insufficient amount to live independently, the reason for this rule would be to prevent people from becoming a burden on others. We should be able to sell our land only if we have enough remaining to live freely and independently.

A land registry would make it possible to disallow the sale of land by someone with not much land

It would (might) be a good idea to introduce the concept of a minimum piece, quantity of land. This means that the State will not recognise the transfer if someone seeks to sell this land. To sell the land, the landowner would be required to show that they have more land elsewhere.

If the land agencies would refuse to recognise a divestment (selling) of land below the threshold then we can be confident giving to the landless (those without land) a portion of land; they will not be able to sell it for profit. A land registry of land ownership would allow someone to demonstrate their landlessness by challenging the authorities to show which land is owned by them. If no land can be shown it can be assumed that the person is landless. Land can then be given in confidence to this person since we know that they have no land and will not be able to sell the land and claim landlessness once more.

The ability to prove that we have no land enables people to give more confidently and might be a requirement (an obstacle, if we have not much land) to sell land, if we seek to make sure that everyone has a piece of land. A land registry (which enables people to demonstrate that they have no land) would enable people to prove their poverty and make giving land more secure.

If people cannot sell land to the extent that they are landless we can be confident that to give them land will not result in the donation being wasted; they would not be able to sell what has been given to them.

The Land Value Tax is a peaceful way to encourage landowners to release their property

It is possible to regard the Land Value Tax as a form of retaliation against landowners. If the State does not have the right to tax land then landowners might be able to acquire an increasingly large quantity, as they are able to rent out the land at more than their living costs.

Taxing land has the helpful externality that land prices will fall. If there is no disincentive against owning land then land costs will constantly increase as the cost of living falls, as landowners need to spend less of their money, due to technological and political improvements. If there is not a (legal) disincentive against owning land it will not be made available to those without land at an affordable price.

We have a right to go wherever we like but not to hurt anyone or thing

Our presence in the wrong place does not cause damage.

Whist criminal damage is a crime, the violation of 'property' is not a crime. Without damage, property cannot be violated because, to violate it, it must not have been in use and must have been available and there is no loss so we cannot violate property and hence there is no valid claim such as property. A claim to property is a false claim. We do not have property rights, we only have the right not to be damaged and for objects (not owned by any single person) not to be damaged. A crime against (a) person or object is a crime against everyone.

We own nothing, but retain the right not to be hurt and for objects we are concerned about not to be damaged. We do not have a right to exclude someone from a piece of space, or property. We are entitled to go anywhere provided we do not cause damage.

Land will not be allowed to become too expensive if there is a restriction on land acquisition

If land acquisition might be unlimited people will worry about getting land of their own. If land is limited then we can be assured that land prices will be reasonable and people can get their own land. It would make people happy to know that there is a limit on land ownership. The absence of a land (value) ceiling creates fear and anxiety because market forces could cause starvation. We can make sure that land prices do not become too expensive if there is a limit on land ownership.

Land rights are not justified unless there is a ceiling on the amount that may be owned

It is inconsistent to support land rights without being in favour of a limit, or cap on land ownership. We cannot make land so to have land ownership relies on the argument that to do so provides positive utility. This means that we are better off to have (and allow) land ownership, but if land is 'monopolised' by a small number of people, this utility evaporates. We can only (justifiably) defend (the argument of) land ownership if we are prepared to have a ceiling, or cap on the amount of land that a single individual may own.

It is a crime of omission that some people are permitted to own an excess of land

There is no other crime of omission than to fail to maximise the utility of resources. If we do not make good use of what is given to us, this is a crime of omission. We have no obligation to use our resources for others, only to use them well. Owning an excess of land is not to use the land well when we can benefit from the prosperity derived from making the land available to other people.

It is a crime to be in possession of an excess of land because, to some extent, the land is property of us all. Regretfully, we must own some of the land to better grow crops and build property but the less land we use the better it is for our neighbours. We tolerate the land ownership of others, so that we might too have our own land. Since land ownership is objectionable to everyone else, it is best to minimise it on a personal level.

We are entitled to object to excessive land ownership and there is nothing wrong with a limit on land acquisition. We have a right to own land only if by doing so, we improve the environment and provide positive utility. It is not helpful for someone to have an excess of land and consequently the land ownership is illegitimate.

A Land Value Ceiling would reduce land prices and make more land available to the market

The dimensions of the Earth are finite which means that, for land to be used optimally, it is best that individuals are prevented from taking control of too great a portion. Land occupation can be restricted with the introduction of a Land Value Ceiling, since land is not infinite. It is not good to tolerate a free market in commodities which are limited in supply, only those things which can be made and reproduced.

When we own land rights this means there is less land available for others and there is no way to reduce this 'externality' (other) than to introduce a limit on how much land we can own. Owning land affects other people and, to reduce this effect we can limit land rights which makes more land available and make it easier for people to purchase land at a reasonable price.

Land ownership requires that our neighbours be compensated to their satisfaction

If we seek to own property that is limited in quantity, such as land (the existence of which precedes us) then it is reasonable to pay a compensatory fee to our neighbours for this inconvenience. If we have not properly compensated our neighbours (and they, us) for our ownership of a limited resource then we cannot truly claim that the land is owned by us. To own land we must (it is an obligation, with ownership being contingent on its satisfaction) pay our neighbours. We do not own the land unless we have paid the appropriate land taxes.

A limit on land ownership would reduce the investment status of domestic property

A limit on land ownership would mean that it is easier to purchase a house because prices would be lower.

There would be a reduced incentive to hoard land and become a landlord, meaning that properties could be more easily acquired since they would have lower market value; their status as investment assets would have been reduced.

Land inequality is a form of poverty

The quantity of useful land in any given community will always be limited. To get the most benefit from the land, and to be rich requires that it is allocated in a proportionate manner. If there is great inequality and many of the inhabitants are subject to having no choice but to pay rent for access to land then this is a form of poverty.

It would be good to know how much land people own

We could use our land resources in a more efficient manner by imposing a Land Value Ceiling on each individual.

If all the land is privately owned, there is no way in which someone can acquire land of their own. To make land cheaper and more accessible, it would be efficient to impose a disincentive against hoarding and owning too great a quantity of land. In nature there is a physical risk in claiming too great a territory, without an equivalent analogue (in law) there is no way to improve the availability of land. However, if it is public knowledge how much land is owned by each person we would know who is making us more uncomfortable and there would be social reasons not to hoard land.

A Land Value Ceiling would encourage more efficient use of the land

Land is used more efficiently if a limit is placed on its ownership.

Income tax makes it difficult for the poor to become better off

Being rich enables a person to refuse unpleasant work, whereas most people must do some from of work which they dislike. The less wealth we have the more easily we are exploited by employers.

Someone who has their own land is able to refuse all offers of employment because, if bad things happen to them they are able to grow food on the land. Poor people are not able to grow their own food because they have no land. The primary means to measure wealth is land ownership; we are poor if we have no land. So the problem of people being poor and Societal inequality is not that others are earning much more than us (why care if a poor person is able to earn some money?) the problem arises when we are made poor by the wealth of others, as in the case of land. We care not that other people are earning money, but that they have land, assuming we are being rational and want to have land of our own.

If Government, and the taxation system can be used to encourage 'fairness' in wealth then it is the wrong approach to seek to do this by punishing (taxing) monetary income, the best way is to tax assets, specifically land.

A Land Value Tax (or even a Land Value Ceiling) is effective in reducing inequality, whereas an income tax is less so and is even detrimental to allowing the poor to improve their circumstances.

Without taxation there would be no land inequality

The purpose of taxes is to help the rich keep their land.

Without taxes it would be more difficult to maintain unfair land inequality, because people would not be willing to defend the land from squatters and other people who would like to make use of the land. Taxation is the cause of land inequality.

There is no reason not to impose a Lockean land ceiling

Land is too expensive so to improve this situation we can and should impose a (Lockean) land ceiling. There is no good argument against imposing a land ceiling.

A Lockean limit would improve land prices

It should not have been possible to become the owner of an excess of land. Individuals should not be allowed to own an excess of land.

It should be against the law (and is aggressive) to violate the Lockean proviso. It is a crime to have allowed such an acquisition to (have) take(n) place, and a crime to have become the owner of an excess of land. The land has been wrongfully acquired. We should not have the right to buy so much land that our ownership adversely influences other people, beyond what they might reasonably expect. It should not have been possible to get so much land and reparations are justified in the form of 'forcing' people to sell (some of) their land. It is justified to force people to sell their land because a crime has been committed in its acquisition. If a crime has been committed then reparations are justified, assuming this will improve the existing environment.

It would improve the environment to impose a Lockean ceiling on the ownership of land. Owning an excess of land means that a crime has been committed in the past and it would be better if no one is allowed to keep such an extent of property, specifically land.

The poor cannot get enough land because of the lack of an upper limit. A Lockean limit would make it easier for the poor to get land at a reasonable price; it would improve land prices.

Excessive land ownership is one of the causes of poverty

Excessive (defined by the Lockean proviso) land ownership is theft.

There is only a limited quantity of land and so the rich are responsible for (the cause of) the poverty of the poor, as far as land rights are concerned. If we own only a modest amount of land then we are not responsible for causing the poverty of others. We cause poverty if we own more than a modest amount of land. Owning too much land causes poverty.

It is a crime to deny to others access to a vital resource

It is a crime to remove an excessive quantity of land from use by the rest of the population. Owning lots of land is aggressive.

It is a crime to remove from use a vital resource; it is a crime to remove oxygen from the air supply just as it is a crime to pollute the air. It is then a crime to own an excess (defined by the Lockean proviso) of land since this removes the ability of others to have access to land, which is a vital resource.

A land ownership limit would reduce crime

The best way to reduce crime would be to introduce a Lockean ceiling on the ownership of land.

There will be more crime if people do not have sufficient access to land. If they cannot live independently and are not able to find suitable employment, then people will resort to crime to survive and (or) live well. Then, more reasonable distribution of land ownership (rights) would reduce crime. The imposition, introduction of a Lockean ceiling would reduce crime.

If we own an excess of land then it is not being put to good use

If land is not being put to good use (by its present owners) then it is rightly owned by other people. We measure whether the land is being put to good use in relation to the rest of the population. We are not putting the land to good use if we have an excess and others are in need. Land is not being put to good use if we have violated the Lockean proviso. The Lockean ceiling is the point beyond which land cannot be put to good use by an individual.

If we own an excess of land this means we are not able to put it to good use.

The land is owned by those whom can make the best use of it

The Lockean proviso alone is sufficient reason to deny property claims.

If property claims are to be considered legitimate they must increase the general wellbeing, by definition, and so it is reasonable to have a mechanism whereby it is possible to prevent land (and perhaps other forms of property) ownership from being dominated by a small number of individuals. In the same sense that we are not able to own a person, even if willingly sold, so too are we unable to own an excess of land. If the land can be put to (much) better use by (a sample of) the rest of the population then it ceases to be owned by the original owner.

If land can be put to (much) better use by others, then it is rightly owned by them.

The land is owned by those whom can make the best use of it, at the price and it is not owned by someone who fails to do the same. If someone is not making good use of the land, from the perspective of those who might make better use of it then the land ceases to be owned by the incumbent occupant. The land is not owned by someone who is not making good use of the land.

The courts do not yet recognise the arguments behind the Lockean proviso

Property rights, in particular land rights can be arranged by consensus so that we do not rely on disputes being settled among and between the adversaries. If there is a property dispute, this will mean that one party is of the view that another is trespassing. Rather than take action themselves, in defence as they see it, if they are only an individual entity and not the upholding authority, they will (can) refer this complaint to the courts who will find for one or the other side.

In the case of excessive land claims, the complainant (the instigator) is able (we presume) to occupy the land and later await the decision of the tribunal. If the courts do not eject the trespassers (squatters) then the land changes hands and ownership will transfer to the new occupants.

If there is a property dispute, it is rightly referred to the judicial authority. If land claims are unpopular then to test them in court, we must first occupy the land, perhaps.

Alternatively, we might seek permission (beforehand) to occupy the land and request an opinion on the merits of the claim. The courts should take into consideration the limited nature of land, and that we do not make it ourselves; it is here before us, when making their deliberations on property claims. Presently, the courts do not generally give consideration to the issues raised by the Lockean proviso.

Excessive land claims are unpopular and hence illegitimate

Often, where land rights are protected free of charge by the State police service, or army, the rich are subsidised by the poor; if we pay nothing to have our land protected then this is an advantage which is disproportionately beneficial to the rich, since they have the most land. Socialism (often) subsidises the rich at the expense of the poor. The best way to remedy this situation, if property rights are (still) to be recognised by a coercive State, is to impose a Lockean limit, or Lockean ceiling on the quantity of land that may be owned.

A Lockean ceiling would reduce land inequality.

Inequality is exacerbated if the natural costs of (protecting) land ownership are removed. The rich naturally have a cost (falling on them) when they seek to own an excessive quantity of land in that they must seek the consent of their neighbours. We can only properly be said to own property if it is with the consent of the people affected; those who are our neighbours.

Property rights are organised by (and derived from) consensus, whether force is being used aggressively, or defensively, depends on the opinion of other members of the group and is otherwise arbitrary. If the State defends property claims which are unpopular with the group then the beneficiary is receiving a subsidy. A Lockean limit or ceiling would reduce the extent to which the State is expected to defend unpopular land claims.

Land claims are illegitimate if they are unpopular.

It is better if people do not own an disproportionate quantity of land

There is no reason, other than fear, why a person should respect the property rights of someone else if they have no property of their own.

The advantage of property rights is that it allows us to better arrange the allocation of resources for the most happiness. If we have no property then, clearly, the system is working against us and we have nothing to gain by respecting it. Providing there is a sufficiency, property shared is better than property owned exclusively by one person, or a small number. It is better if a small number of people do not own a disproportionate quantity of land.

Property is theft unless there is a limit on land ownership

Without a limit on property rights, they are not moral, since they will not allow the greatest happiness. A system of property rights that permits ownership of any amount land is not moral. To be valid, property rights must limit land ownership with a Lockean limit.

It makes people happy to use defensive force

Without property rights extending to things like land, we cannot live peacefully and abundantly. If we cannot retain (the product of) our labour then we will have no incentive to create it, and there will be no complexity. We have a right to deny to others what we have made ourselves, if it (ownership) is not idiosyncratic to the person who made it then there are no proper incentives. Our individual actions are immoral if we contravene that which is pragmatic. We are immoral if we reduce happiness.

The use of force in defence of property rights is then acceptable because this provides the environment which allows the most happiness. If goods are combined and we have no choice but to share, then there is little incentive to produce (we can still take the same amount) and without the incentive to produce there will be no production and people will starve. Collectivism removes the incentive to work. There is no reason to force people to share their produce. Collectivism is not pragmatic; it is pragmatic and moral to leave people alone.

It is better to let other people be free

We have no right to remove someone from an area, only to remove ourselves. We should harvest elsewhere. If someone is not sufficiently careful of our property then they are at fault and have diminished the chances for wealth and happiness.

We have no right to prevent freedom of movement, and so we have the right to destroy all property that is in our way if we are stupid. We have a right to be stupid. Taxation is stupid. It would be better to let innocent people go free and make sure we have left enough land to others. It is better to allow other people to have freedoms, where possible.

It is aggressive to defend an excess of land

It is reasonable to have a system of land rights, only if no one has violated the Lockean proviso, if this is in violation then to use force to impose this situation is not acceptable.

It is not acceptable to use force in defending land, if some of it is in violation of the Lockean proviso. Using force to defend land is not acceptable if we have too much, and to do so would be aggressive.

All land claims are invalid if someone owns an excess

To use force against another person in a justified way, requires that it must improve general wellbeing. It might be beneficial to lock up a criminal. Protecting land claims is not defensive as we cannot claim to truly own the land. When we use force to defend the land, we are using it to defend property rights and land claims themselves, not the particular plot. We are defending a system of property claims, which might be illegitimate if they (any one of them) have violated the Lockean proviso.

The system of property rights, in its entirety, is illegitimate if some of the constituents, beneficiaries are in ownership of an excess. If some people own an excess, the system of property rights is invalid.

The Government should not defend excessive land claims

Our ownership of land (in fact, of all property) is contingent on the compliance of the rest of the population. If they agree to respect our land claims, then we can have exclusive use of the land. In exchange for staying off the land of others, we are repaid by having our land claims tolerated.

If we want to equalise the distribution of land then we can impose a ceiling on the ownership of land. It would be fairer (the land would be used more efficiently, in terms of generating wealth and happiness) to restrict wealthy landowners from owning an excess of land. The Government is not a neutral player in this, a laisser faire approach will result in land property (ownership) being dominated by a small number of people, since it is possible to rent excess land at more than the cost of living. A free market approach to land will result in land inequality, and inefficient use of the land.

The Government should desist from defending an excess of land to improve effective use of the land. If the Government only recognises (no more than) a reasonable quantity of land for each person then this will be better. If someone has more than a reasonable amount they should be invited to sell some of their land, or risk their ownership to be in dispute. We should be forced to sell some of our land, if we have too much, to improve land use.

A limit on land ownership would prevent land inequality

A Lockean limit would prevent people from hoarding an excess of land. Land inequality can be prevented by imposing an upper limit to land acquisition, this would limit the amount of land that an individual may own.

Difficulties can result when people are hoarding an excess of land

If we are landless, and we want to eat then, practically speaking, we are a slave to those who have land. We must do whatever they want, as a group, because otherwise we will starve. Assuming we do not want to starve, then the landless are a slave class to the landed. The landless are owned by the landed. Being able to sell access to land takes no effort. Since this demonstrates the owner has an excess and land is a fundamental property then the ability to lease land reflects a deeper injustice.

If we lease property to improve already wealthy lives then there is not problem with this, but if we lease property, particularly land, to those who without it will starve, this represents an inequality. If people are prevented from hoarding an excess of land then this problem will not exist.

We do not own ourselves if we are in fear of a landowner

We do not own ourselves if we do not own a sufficient piece of land.

If we have no land, then to eat we must either pay rent for a field which (we are able) to farm, or we must sell our labour to someone who has food, which too must be derived from land. Our hunger is typically a problem that can be resolved by nature, but if we have no access to land then this becomes a negotiation with another individual.

To facilitate the freedom of the people, we must, where possible, try to ensure that everyone has sufficient and reasonable access to the land. We are not free if we have been prevented from using land by another person. All land claims restrict the freedoms of other people, this is legitimate when done in moderation but not when we are being too aggressive, threatening.

The validity of land ownership is contingent on the opinion of our neighbours

To know whether someone is trespassing we can only make reference to the opinion of the community. If the majority are of the view that a person is occupying land illegitimately claimed, then we can say that the person is trespassing. We are not trespassing if most people do not object to our having (exclusive) use of the land.

Since, if we have taken only a small quantity of land then we have, very likely, left enough to our neighbours, then we can suppose that most people will not object and we can own land when we have only a small proportion. We might face more strong disagreement if we have taken an excessive quantity of land. Our land claims will be less popular if we have taken an excess, and in this case, due to its unpopularity we will cease to be the legitimate owner of the land.

If we have not left enough (and as good) land to others then we have violated the Lockean proviso and we have more land that we are entitled to claim according to the Lockean limit. Land is not owned beyond the Lockean limit because this will cease to be with the consensus of the group. They will then be trespassing on the land and it will be perfectly legitimate (under normal practices of arranging property rights) to remove them.

Land ownership will be unpopular beyond the Lockean limit and this will mean that the land ceases to be owned.

We have a right to own an excess of land only if there are no poor people

We have no right to own an excess of land if others are landless.

For property rights to be justified they must be pragmatic for the group, as property rights are concerned with the welfare of the group. If some people have no land, then clearly it is best for the group that they should be able to get land, since we assume the people are not criminal and in prison. If it is pragmatic for the poor to get land, then it must too be pragmatic for the rich to give up their land and anything else violates pragmatism and is not justified.

The poor have a right to demand that the rich give away a portion of their land, and that land wealth is capped. If there are poor people, without land then we have no right to own an excess of land. We only have a right to own an excess of land if there are no people who have no land of their own. If there are poor people we have no right to an excess of land.

Land rights are unstable and not legitimate unless there is a mechanism to reduce inequality

Property rights are utilitarian in the sense that without them the community would suffer. It is beneficial for people to be able to retain the output of the labour. Even though we do not make land it is still beneficial to allocate land rights so that land can be farmed and occupied without fear of being removed. This allows people to invest in the locality, whether in the construction of buildings or the preparation of food crops.

The utility of land rights is threatened when land ownership becomes too unequal. The value in allocating land to each individual can be measured by the marginal advantage of yet more land. If someone has not much land, then a little extra would be very welcome, but someone with an excess of land (as defined by the Lockean proviso) would derive no great advantage from having more. Each unit of land is more important to the one with a small quantity. If land ceases to be above a certain level of personal importance to the owner, (per unit of incremental increase) measured objectively, not idiosyncratically, relative to the remainder of the population then this land is not legitimately owned.

We do not own the (entirety of the) land if extra land is of little personal value, measured objectively, not subjectively. We have no right to own significantly more land than our neighbours, for whatever reason, if they can be said to not have sufficient land of their own.

Land reforms would reduce aggression and unease within the population

The law should not allow people to own an excess of land, as defined by the Lockean proviso. If the law allows people to own an excess of land it should be amended. The law is not legitimate if it allows excessive property ownership because to be legitimate, the law must be to the advantage of the community. It is not helpful if people are permitted to control all the land.

Property rights are useful provided they do not establish (and maintain) land tyranny, in which case they will be overthrown.To prevent the occurrence of violent riots and the overthrow of the existing arrangement, inequality should be addressed.

There will be no riots if there is land reform.

Land ownership can be allocated more evenly if the Government ceases to subsidise property rights

The Government should stop subsidising (excessive) property ownership. There are natural costs associated with owning property, and making sure others do not trespass, this includes collaborating with our neighbours and being open to the suggestion that we have occupied too much land. If the Government removes these costs, by subsidising property ownership then people will be more inclined to own property which can lead to land accumulating into the hands of just a few people. If land ownership is not subsidised then it will be utilised more evenly.

The best style of Government is Georgism unless we have outright anarchy

Inequality would not exist in an anarchist system (without a Government) because people would be compelled to provide their own property protection, and this would reduce the incentive to hoard property. However, since we do at the present time have subsidised property that means we observe a rise in inequality. Because of this, and if the Government is entitled to impose taxation, then we might seek ways in which to reduce this problem which will then lead to less demand for State benefits.

If land ownership carries a cost, as it would do if property taxes were imposed, this would lead to a lessening of inequality.

Replacing transaction taxes, such as the income tax, with property taxes directed at land ownership would reduce inequality and subsequently reduce the size of the State. A land tax would reduce inequality and give wealth to more people which would lead to (a smaller State and) more modest taxation in other forms. To impose a system of Georgist taxes would result in the size of the State being reduced. Unless we have outright anarchy, which would lead to the most equitable arrangement, a Georgist system of Government will be the least aggressive.

Anarchy would mean that everyone would have a reasonable claim to the land

There is a natural risk to property ownership, particularly land.

If someone thinks you have taken too much land, they might want to have use of it but would be fearful that you are prepared to use force in defending your land. If so they may choose to preemptively attack you. If we seek to claim property we risk preemptive attack.

We can reduce the risk that we will be attacked by someone who wants (to have) use of our land, by owning only a small quantity. If we own a little land there is less chance of being killed, provided land ownership is not subsidised which removes (or reduces) the risk.

Owning land is risky.

Without the Government to protect them people will be naturally inclined to own and claim only a small proportion of the land available, so that they do not risk getting killed. There are no landlords in an anarchist system.

If land is subsidised then it will tend to be owned by fewer and fewer people

Excessive land ownership is unjustifiable.

We can justify property ownership on pragmatic grounds, it is effective to own what we make because that way we retain the incentive to create. It is also effective to own a certain amount of land because if we have our own plot, we will better take care of the land.

If we seek the right to exclude others from the use of land or property, we must at least have a justification without such we are simply being aggressive when the land is defended, or threats are made for defence. It is aggressive to 'defend' land if we own an excess.

We should not be able to (it is immoral and aggressive to) protect land if we own an excess. There is no reason to defend an excess of land, it is not a vital and justifiable use of force and not descalating the situation. The State could seize land that is owned by someone with an excess and sell it into the market, which would allow others to live more freely. The property could be expropriated via either eminent domain or compulsory purchase.

If the Government expropriated land from those who own an excess, in violation of the Lockean proviso then land would be (able to be) more efficiently used. Land inequality might lead to (result in) land expropriation, which might be seen as theft.

There is a natural tendency for land and wealth to cluster (and accumulate) into the hands of a small number of people. If someone owns a lot of a rentable property such as land it is easy for them to acquire more because their living costs will always be below their aggregate rent income. Land tends to be owned by fewer and fewer people, as time progresses.

We do not own more than an upper ceiling of land

We do not own property, in the conventional sense, if the Government does not recognise our claims to the land. And if the land ownership is too not recognised by others then it cannot reliably be said to be owned. By definition, like all things, property claims are a matter of opinion. Generally it is held that the Government authority in a jurisdiction will make the final ruling, that is the Government dictates what property is owned by whom. If we own property it is our view that no one, not even the Government has a rightful claim over (and above) that which we make for ourselves. We might not think that someone with an excess of land is the true owner.

We can only own land if we do not claim an excess.

The Government should not recognise excessive property ownership

It's not very nice to own an excess of land.

It is better if we allow others to have use of land also, even if we have the legal right to exclude them, so that they are able to grow their own crops and prosper. It is good to let others do well, even if we can prevent it. It is better to be surrounded by happy people.

Owning an excess of land is unpleasant because we are preventing life around us from flourishing, even though there is nothing to fear from the practice and we are not being aggressive. Owning an excess of land is being exploitative, we are exploiting the poverty of others.

The world can be made more equal if we impose restrictions on the acquisition and ownership of property. We are defending ourselves against the unfairness of history and the limited nature of some resources. It is not the fault of property owners if they own too much, they have not been aggressive. A healthy Society would restrict (not recognise) excessive property ownership.

The Government subsidises land ownership

The landless are owed compensation from those who have an excess of land.

If we have an excess of land it means we owe a payment to those who do not have any land of their own to compensate them for their compliance with the pertaining property claims. The poor are owed compensation by the rich for being denied access to land. We are owed compensation for being denied access to land.

It is legitimate to restrain the market when it comes to land, because we cannot own and trade land in isolation as everyone is involved in the arrangement. We all have an involvement in land. The Government is intervening in the land market when it provides protection at below the market price.

Excessive land ownership is illegitimate if others have no land

It is not pragmatic to allow people to violate the Lockean proviso, by definition we do not make the best use of resources. It is not moral if we do not allow others to make use of resources that we are not making good use of ourselves. It is immoral to restrict others from the use of property that we do not need to have use of, not to share what we can afford to let others have use of. There is a lack of morality in not sharing.

It is immoral to own more land that we require.

It is immoral to own an excess of land, but this crime is not defined by aggression and the use of force. Being rich, and buying land pushes up the price of land, but land is limited in supply, unlike goods which can be reproduced by hand. Land would not be expensive if we are not permitted to own an excess. Land is expensive because the State removes the natural costs to owning land, which include protection. There is a problem if land is not available (to the poor) at a reasonable price.

Land will be expensive if some people are permitted to own a sizeable majority of the land, for investment purposes. To justify land ownership we must show that there are others who have a less legitimate claim, subject to the qualification that below a certain level no one is required to make such a justification. If we assume an abundance of resources, that there is enough food to go around, then we cannot claim that, without an excess of land we will starve. In this case there is no justification, instead we only make the point that no others have a (more) legitimate claim. But there are others with a more legitimate claim, by definition since we have violated the Lockean proviso.

If there are people who have a need for land then we have no right to own an excess of land.

To violate the Lockean proviso means we owe more land rent than we are owed

If we only own a small amount of land then we owe no debt to our neighbours because we have taken (are occupying) no more than is a reasonable amount. The reality that land is not owned, it is borrowed, is not relevant unless we are in occupation of a significant quantity.

No one owns land, we rent it from one another and so the more land that is owned, the greater the rent we owe to our neighbours. If we owe more than we are owed then we can expect to receive a request for payment. Someone with only a small amount of land is owed no less than they owe, so no charge is brought against them. Someone with much land owes a greater quantity of land rent than they are owed so they must pay the discrepancy. To own an excess of land means we owe more land rent than we are due, thus the remainder is due (to be paid) to our neighbours.

To own an excess of property means that we owe more land rent than we are owed.

We can own an excess of land if we pay rent to our neighbours

There is a natural cost to land ownership. If we want to protect land we must risk ourselves in protecting, defending it, when it is under threat. The Government removes these costs as there is no charge for land ownership once it has been claimed. This removes mechanisms for the owners to bear the costs to the rest of the population and indemnifies them from their responsibilities, which include being sympathetic to the material needs of our neighbours.

Under a Libertarian system of Government there should be a mechanism to challenge property claims, and to compensate those who have insufficient land. The Government should not protect the land of someone who owns an excess, in violation of the Lockean proviso.

Landowners should be encouraged to show that their ownership is not forever and that they will give up ownership after a limited time, so that it more closely relates to a rental arrangement than outright ownership.

It is not enough for a landowner to have been given permission from the seller, to acquire a property if they own too much. No one wants to be poor and if we deny to others access to our land then we make them less rich than ourselves. It is unfair for the Government to remove the natural costs, and compensations that would exist without (merely) legal recognition of property. If we own land we normally pay compensation of some kind to our neighbours, often reciprocated, but if we can own land without making this payment then the State has given us something for free and taken from others.

Granting property rights without explicit consent from the rest of the population is a form of taxation. Property is theft if we own an excess, unless our neighbours are properly compensated as we have stolen the compensating rental payments which are due to everyone. We can only legitimately own property if we have paid enough to our neighbours.

We must all pay rent on our property.

To share and make the best use of property, since we did not manufacture it, we pay rent for exclusive access. We have a contract with others to stay away from our land, which can be organised centrally. If someone has violated the Lockean proviso, with their property ownership then it is legitimate for the surrounding population to charge them a fee. We can own an excess of (unmade) land if we have paid a fee to others.

It will be more peaceful if people have access to land

We are a moral species.

People behave in a moral manner when they can. If resources are scarce people will take what they need from the environment, even if that is the life of another animal, but if not, and resources are plentiful, generally people (and animals) will leave each other alone. For one thing, it is costly to be aggressive since there could be retaliation, if not directly from the victim perhaps from colleagues.

Given that, to make a more pleasant environment we should make sure individuals have access to resources.

Mediation is the best way to solve land disputes between informal agencies

The way to settle land disputes is through mediation. If people disagree about land ownership they can rely on third parties to provide mediation. This may be provided by more than one agency so a second opinion can be sought. Someone who has been refused (unsupported) a land claim by more than a couple of agencies will soon start to question their attitude.

Certain (some) land mediation agencies will gain ascendancy and a reputation and these will generally provide legitimacy for all land claims going forward.

Without a coercive State the land would be distributed more evenly

The presence of a coercive Government means that the costs of protecting a piece of land are no different, regardless of the size. In a free market situation there would be natural costs to owning too great a piece of land because to protect it would be costly, there is a natural disincentive against being too greedy, with respect to land. The State removes this disincentive against being greedy over land ownership. Without the State, people would be less inclined to hoard an excessive quantity of land.

Without the use of force land inequality will continue

We cannot end a land monopoly without being aggressive. We must use force and initiate force, if we wish to end an onerous monopolisation. If people will not end a monopoly willingly, the only other way is with the use of threats to engage in violence.

A good Government would tax property and land

A land tax would be a good idea because it would disincentivise people against occupying an excess of land. This is a good thing because it makes more land available for everyone else to use. A good Government would replace transaction taxes with a property tax. A good Government would place a tax on land.

We will not be a good citizen if we have no land

If people do not have sufficient resources they will cease to be civilised. There is no system of law which will survive an environment within which there are insufficient resources. If there are insufficient resources, there is no law and equivalently, if there is a group within Society which has not enough land then they too will have little respect for the law. The sanctity of the law is reliant on everyone having a sufficiency of resources. If we don't have enough resources we will become lawless.

A good Government would make sure everyone has land of their own

If the Government were a selfless entity, they would make sure that everyone had their own piece of land. It would be nice if everyone were given their own land, since there is a sufficiency of land. Since there is enough land we should each be given a piece of land.

Slavery comes from a failure to limit property acquisition

We should limit property acquisition so that we all have a chance to live independently. Failure to limit property acquisition will make some people the slaves of the rest.

Property rights are more stable if they impose a limit on property acquisition

A system of property rights is more stable and less prone to revolution if it has a mechanism to prevent excessive property ownership and inequality.

It is inevitable that there will be a land tax eventually

If we assume that the majority will not tolerate their lives being threatened to uphold the property rights of the minority, there will be a violent revolution if land inequality is not addressed. The way to prevent and obviate a violent revolution would be to introduce a land tax which alleviates the problems of inequality.

Land inequality can be reduced with a property tax

It would be better to prevent excessive land use because this way (by doing so) people will always be able to provide their own food and to live independently. If we don't prevent excessive land monopolisation people will not be able to provide their own food. Poverty can be prevented by making sure that the land is available at a fair price, to all. We can prevent poverty by reducing land monopolisation. A Land Value Tax would reduce land inequality.

It would be better to prevent excessive land use

We do not have a right to own land, but we do have a right to the use of land, if there is a sufficiency. If we own land in the traditional sense, all that is happening is that we are borrowing the land from the Government (the community) at zero cost. It is not right (correct) that the Government grants this ability to some, to excess, when others have no land.

All land rights come from the Government which loans land to those who own it at zero cost. This is reasonable up to the point where land is granted to excess to a small number of people, in this situation the Government should allocate the land more reasonably. If we allow some to monopolise the land it might be that people will starve. If we do not impose a restriction on land ownership, some people might starve and lose out on the chance to live.

Land inequality stifles harmonious living for the population. It would be better to arrange land use more evenly by denying excessive land rights.

The law is written by the landowners

Land is finite and a vital resource, we cannot live without land since we cannot grow our own crops without the permission of other people, whether by leasing land or selling our labour. For these reasons, land ownership is invalid and a form of theft.

Since without oxygen and land we will starve, it is legitimate to use violence to secure these resources in a War for resources. There are no property rights when there is an insufficiency of wealth. People become desperate when they have no land. We are required and expected to obey the law and property rights when we have been afforded similar respect, but when we have not been offered a reasonable (degree of) access to the eternal commons, then we have no obligation to respect the law. The law is invalid if people have not been given enough land.

We are at the mercy of the landowners

It is a mistake to deny access to resources to other people if you do not need the resources yourself. This is not sharing your assets, because you can still retain their use, when you need them, but making excess resources available when you can. To charge rent for these resources is exploitative since we know that you do not need the resources for yourself so then you are profiteering at the expense of others. If we do not make our resources available, we might call this sharing resources, then we have missed out on the opportunity to assist other people.

If we have resources, we have an opportunity to help others. To charge (excessive) rent is to miss out on the chance to help others by providing your assets at no charge. If land (or the air we breathe) is owned by others we are at their mercy to survive. We are craven to the landowners if we wish to survive.

Land ownership is not moral if we own an excess

It's not logical to own something that cannot be made. It can be possible to pay others to stay away from our land, and if they violate this arrangement we are entitled to complain. We can pay the State to make sure that people stay away from our land and the State must pay those who have no land. If we have no land we are owed a payment for staying off the land, if someone owns an excess.

To eject someone from an excess of land is aggressive, if we have not paid others to stay away, if we have not rented the land. To own an excess of land is aggressive since there is no need to own so much land. We should own no more than we need. If some people own too much land (and prevent crop growth) the rest of the population will starve. To prosecute a trespasser in that situation is not defensive.

It is not defensive to defend the privileged minority.

A pertaining system of property rights which results in starvation for many people is not moral. It is immoral for some people to own an excess of land.

We owe a rent for the exclusive use of land

Ownership of land is not theft, but is it a malign behaviour because we are not compensating our neighbours. We must compensate our neighbours on an ongoing basis, if we wish to exclude them from the land. To exclude others from the land we must compensate them with a rent.

If we are not renting land, but instead claiming that we own a freehold, we are being aggressive and immoral. We do not have a right to own land because we cannot be certain that others might not have an equally valid claim.

A plot of land can be owned by only one person and it is pragmatic to allow exclusive access to land so that the land may be used effectively. Because we would starve without land we must compensate those who do not own land with a rent, so that they do not starve, which is the requirement that we must satisfy for our owning the land. If we own too much land, others will starve, so to compensate for this we owe a rent to the community for the (exclusive) use of land.

We must pay to lease an excess of land

Land is not owned, it is borrowed from our neighbours.

Presently, many people have this service for free because they have a freehold which means they owe nothing for all time. Someone not yet born might object to the arrangement.

We have no obligation to history. It is not permissible to own land, for all time.

The central agency, perhaps the Government should provide no services but it should collect all the rent, as the land is auctioned, and compensate those who do not have enough land of their own. We would each receive a payment which we might choose to spend on land if we wish. There should be no freeholds and no private land ownership, only leases, some of which might be for no charge (free to remain) if we do not own an excess of property.

If we do not violate the Lockean proviso then we can stay on our plot without a payment. A payment is due if you wish to retain land whilst also owning (leasing) an excess. The leasehold has no charge providing the occupant does not own an excess. If the occupant of the leasehold wishes to retain the land then they may do so provided they do not own an excess, in which case they would be required to make a payment for the duration of the next lease, which they would purchase up front. The next leasehold will not be free if you own an excess.

We should pay rent if we seek to own an excess of land

We are temporary and land is permanent. This means that when we die the land remains and is not taken with us, from the Earth. The land existed before our arrival and we can only inherit land if it is given to us by our (collective) parents. If none of the older generation ever sell it to us, we might never have land. The land was made (and cleared) by someone else, it is inherited collectively and must be used responsibly. To maximise the pleasure with (by) which we can derive the best use of the land, it must be allocated diligently.

A tasty cake provides more pleasure to many people (each eating their share) than if one person consumes it all.

We must be careful to allocate the land resources diligently to make sure that the most people survive, in the most comfortable conditions. If someone wants to have use of the land, particularly to excess, it is right that they compensate the remainder of the population with an ongoing payment. If someone wants to have an excess of land, they should make a (rent) payment to the rest, in compensation.

We may only rent land from others it cannot be owned

We have no right to prevent others from owning land if we have not compensated them. If we seek to have use of the land we must rent it from our neighbours. It is not acceptable to claim to own land for all time, into eternity.

Since we must have some mechanism to partition the land then at least if we are offered rent for our lack of access we are compensated. This is better than nothing. To own land we should pay an ongoing rent to a central authority which will then compensate those who do not own land.

It is not kind to own an excess of property

Is land more important than people? If land is more important than people, this justifies the use of property rights to prevent someone from engaging in a normal activity which sustains life. If we own all the oxygen in the atmosphere this allows others to be suffocated when we protect those property rights. If we do not have a right to suffocate the population then we must question the validity of claiming rights over the air, and the land.

We only own the land if it is reasonable for us to do so. Protecting land (with force) is defensive if we are not threatening the sustenance of other life. It is not reasonable to eat meat.

It is unreasonable to keep people off your land if doing so threatens their life and you are not similarly threatened. Since we all need land, to deny others that right (to own land yourself) can only be justified if without the land that you defend, you would suffer greatly. To deny others land we must have a compelling reason to protect it, for ourselves. To own land is to inflict (at least the threat of) violence and simple desire is not enough to justify this we must show the harm that would result if we are deprived of the land. If we have no land we will have nowhere to grow our food.

To own land is not a positive claim. We only claim that the land is not owned by others. We own what is not owned by others.

The original occupier of the land did not build it, they did not make it theirs by cultivation it was protected with defensive force. Ownership is not derived from force. Wealth is not derived from violence.

If we have no land we have been denied our natural rights. We should not be able to buy and sell land, only our own produce. Land is not owned by anyone, it is loaned to us by the community in which we live. Land is not owned. We cannot sell something we do not own.

The land is a gift from God.

Land cannot be traded for produce, we can only swap land for other land. We cannot buy land from someone who would be left with less than the reasonably mandated minimum. We cannot use force unless it is vital and to defend an excess of land (which prevents others from using it, if they want to) is not a vital action because you already have plenty of land. Even if we own land, to defend it must only be done if the loss would be very traumatic. It is not very kind to own an excess of land.

Excessive land ownership is unkind and cruel.

There is no need to defend land unless property is being damaged

Protecting land from someone seeking to make good use of it is unnecessary and violent. Provided the interloper is not damaging your goods and property, such as crops that you have planted yourself then we have no right to use force to defend the land. It is not necessary to use force to defend land rights against someone who has not damaged property. If property is not being damaged then it is not necessary to defend land rights.

We have no formal mechanism with which to express our lack of consent to excessive property acquisition

If the people who own the land are excessively wealthy, and have no need for an income, as we can assume, they cannot be relied upon to provide labour or cheap food. The food in the orchard might be rotting in the trees but because we are landless, we have nothing of value to offer in exchange, not even our labour and there is no economic reason for the landowner to offer the fruit to the surrounding population...

For the ownership of the orchard and farmland to be legitimate requires the consent of the surrounding neighbours. If land is legitimately owned, it may be sold (and we can assume the domestic population will be indifferent to the nature of the (new) occupant) but to maintain ownership we must have the (continuing) consent of our neighbours. If we want to defend and own a piece of property, this amounts to a request made to our neighbours for that consent.

To some people it might not be acceptable (they might not agree to consent, to respecting the land property rights) that someone might own an excess of land. In this situation we withhold our consent. Since property rights rely on the consent of the surrounding population, there must be a mechanism with which we are able to control the (excessive) land acquisition of others. A Democratically chosen Land Value Ceiling would be a suitable such mechanism. This would formalise the nature of property rights which rely upon consent.

Without land we might starve

In spite of land property rights being (ideally) arranged on an informal basis, we nevertheless have an obligation not to occupy too great a proportion of the land. If we deny to others too great a proportion of the land, we are being aggressive and not good neighbours. Good neighbours allow others to have reasonable access to land.

To be denied access to land (for legitimate, not harmful reasons) requires justification, and this can only be that someone else has a greater, or at least equal requirement. To own an excess of land which violates the Lockean proviso requires justification. We are justified to own land if without it we will suffer and perish. We are poor if we do not have sufficient access to land.

Land is the solution to poverty.

We can be the cause of poverty if we own too much land and deprive others of (the use of) land. Owning land creates poverty in others. People would be in a lesser degree of poverty if those with an excess of land decided to give it away to their associates. There would be less poverty if people were more restrained with regard to their land ownership. A greater number of people would be wealthy if land is more evenly owned.

There is no need for formal property rights

It is a crime to defend an excess of land, which violates the Lockean proviso. If we are guilty of this, we are guilty of common assault. Anyone that defends an excess of land is a criminal.

But we have no right to retaliate.

There is no need to have an excess of land, though. There is no need to have property rights and defend land, it can be arranged informally. Property rights should be arranged on an informal basis.

We are not entitled to defend an excess of land

If we have an excess of land then we have a Social obligation to allow others to work on the land and to grow their own crops, at no charge. We are not entitled to charge rent if we have an excess of land. We are also not entitled to prevent other people from using the land, if we have an excess. If we have violated the Lockean proviso we are not entitled to defend the land. It is a crime to defend land ownership which violates the Lockean proviso. We are only entitled to defend property if we have not violated the Lockean proviso. It is aggressive to defend an excess of land.

To use force against others is aggressive

If we are not protecting our physical bodies, then any use of force is aggressive, we have no right to defend (external) property, such as land or manufactured goods. In that sense then, there are no property rights.

We cannot violate the Lockean proviso because it is based on the false premise of external property rights. If we defend land, we are being aggressive. If we defend manufactured goods such as tools, factories and machines (the instruments of labour) then we are being aggressive. It is aggressive to defend (external, not of the body) property rights.

We should not be able to own land forever

The solution to the land problem would be to make ownership never more than for a period of a few years, we cannot own land for all time, into eternity. Land can only be owned for a temporary period and we must impose limits on the length of time that land may be owned. Land should only be available to own for a temporary period, not forever.

We can only own land if we are paying rent to those who surround us

Property rights dictate that we are obligated to stay away from the property of other people, if they wish us to do so. It is reasonable for us to respect the property of someone that has been made by them, such as a machine, or clothing; the instruments of labour. To stay away from and respect claims to the subjects of labour is different.

The subjects of labour were existent long before anyone alive today was born. We might think that to have entered the world entitles us to access to land and so on. At least, to be denied access would require justification. We must be reciprocated if we are to respect property rights, if we respect ourselves. Everyone that owns exclusive access rights to the means of production (specifically subjects of labour) owes a payment of compensation to the rest of the population, in the form of rent. We are owed rent if we agree to stay off the land of others and so to, of course, must we pay rent for the same privilege.

We owe rent if we own property and we are owed rent equally, for staying off the land of others. If our property claims are less than the median then we are owed compensation. We cannot use land as a form of saving wealth.

If the State provides Government Services, this (property rights and the ownership of land) can be resolved by replacing other taxes with a Land Value Tax. In any case, even without this form of Socialism, it makes sense to have a central authority which would organise and oversee property claims and it is to this body which a land rent (payable on all claims to the subjects of labour) could be paid.

We owe a debt to our neighbours if we claim exclusive access to land. We have no right to own land unless we are paying rent to those we have deprived.

A property tax would constrain land acquisition

Without a property tax, what is to prevent people from being greedy and selfish and owning more land than is acceptable to the Lockean proviso? If we have no property tax, or equivalent, then people will be able to acquire any amount of land and property.

Ownership is contingent on having not been selfish

Ownership of property is not valid if the Lockean proviso has been violated. Any wealth held above this limit is illegitimate wealth. It is illegitimate to own anything which violates the Lockean proviso. For ownership to be valid we must have left enough to others, and (have) not been greedy. If we have been too greedy then we do not own our assets. Ownership is contingent on (lack of) greed. We can only own something if we have not been selfish.

A property tax would reduce the harm caused by greedy and selfish landowners

Greedy landowners can be prevented from being a hindrance and burden on the communities within which they live if we have a tax, or levy on the ownership of property. A property tax (with a high personal allowance) would reduce the harmful effects of domineering property ownership by a small number of people. If people are prevented from owning more than a sufficiency of property then land will be used more efficiently.

Land is used more efficiently if the rich are forced to sell their land

If rich people are forced to sell their assets, specifically land, this will result in more efficient use of resources being made. We can use resources more efficiently if the rich are forced to sell their assets and property, the subjects (natural resources and raw materials) more than instruments of labour...

If people have no land they cannot survive

If we have no land of our own we cannot survive because we must eat and for that we need sunlight to fall onto the land which grows into crops and meat. If we are denied land then there is no possibility to survive. To deny land to others is similar to killing them directly. We cannot be self reliant if we have no land of our own. The Welfare State is perhaps justified if people are denied land. If people have no land they have no means to provide for themselves and so the landowners owe succour and protection to the poor.

A property tax would encourage the rich to sell their land

For a Society to make the most efficient use of property, it would be best to have disincentives against excessive hoarding of property, according to the Lockean proviso. If the land is held by too few individuals then this is not efficient. Not enough people have (sufficient) property of their own. Private home and land ownership can be increased with a property tax, with a high personal allowance. High house prices prevent people from owning their own home. We cannot acquire property if there is no reason for a person to sell it which there won't be as a result of the rental income available on land. We can encourage rich people to sell their land and property with a property tax.

Excessive property acquisition can be restrained and prevented with a property tax

If land is held disproportionately, the free market cannot be relied upon to ease the suffering of those without land. Ownership of land should be (is) contingent on the Lockean proviso that we have left enough for others.

If the prevailing property allocations are to continue unthreatened (in the absence of a revolution) then it would be helpful to make them more equitable by imposing a property tax, with a high personal allowance. This restrains unfair property acquisition.

A tariff for owning an excess of land would reduce prices

If prices of a valuable (rentable) resource are high it means that those who own the resource are able to rent it out to others at high cost and subsequently purchase yet more. Any new land that does enter the market can be purchased by those already with land, they are rich, and this dynamic results in (exacerbates) great disparities of wealth. Even if we do not have a right to land (if we could sell it that would result in perpetual wealth), there is a problem with people being in a position to profit from our poverty. It is too difficult for people to get their own property if too great a quantity is owned by an exclusive group. Many people have more than enough land.

A penalty for owning too much land would improve prices for the rest of the population.

A property tariff would reduce prices in the market

If resources are limited, which they are, then we should strive to make the best use of them that we can. The problem and situation to be avoided is when too great a number of people have no access to land and Capital. To make it possible for people to have access to Capital at an acceptable price it means we must impose a restriction on the acquisition (or retention) of property. People should not be permitted to have any quantity of property that they are able to afford. It should be illegal (for an individual) to leave insufficient land to others. If we own an excess of property this means it becomes expensive for others. The problem caused by Landlordism is that other properties become too expensive. If people buy land for investment purposes only this means they are not making the best use of the resources (there is no cost, rent to make the acquisition of fallow land unprofitable) and yet they do not sell. This becomes a problem when they are able to buy up a great deal of land which (necessarily) restricts, denies access to others. Since land, and other resources are and will be used for investment it might be prudent to restrain the extent to which a solitary person may own land.

If people do not have sufficient access to Capital, it will be possible for the 'rich' to exploit their poverty by making resources available to rent which results in further and continued wealth for the privileged class. We cannot make Capital available (to the poor) without denying it to someone else. If we impose a tariff on (the ownership of) Capital then this will make resources cheaper in the marketplace.

Land and housing inequality can be alleviated with a property tariff

There is a problem if the ownership of resources in an area is dominated by too few individuals. This means that the resources are not being put into use effectively; other people could make more efficient use of them. Would it not be better if a charge or penalty were to be imposed on those who have more than an appropriate amount, according to the concepts held in the Lockean proviso.

The cost to protect the land is often borne by those who suffer from the inequality.

Socialism is designed to protect the landowners.

We are prevented from having access to land and property that we would otherwise be able to use, as a result of the inequality. The property is being occupied by people who do not derive efficient use from it. Rich people will not sell their homes without incentive to do so. House prices will not fall unless people want to sell their homes. People use their homes as an investment. For property to be a useful investment it must be the case that there is a market price to cease the denial of access to the property, at least to a particular person. If a house is expensive it is because people want it.

To redress housing (land) inequality we might impose a tariff or charge on property ownership.

There should be disincentives against hoarding resources

Is it not better to share the land in a more even way?

If we are owed (a minimum amount of) land, if (we assume) there is more than enough for everyone, then to purchase land from someone who has very little places the burden to replace this onto others. If we are owed land and it is possible to sell that land then it is easy to have a perpetual income from selling what we are given, each time. If only people who have above an established maximum are forced to give up their land in such circumstances then this does not result in a perpetual income, when everyone is below the threshold; you are no longer owed land since no one has more than is acceptable.

If land is always owned by someone (no land is Government owned) then a property cap, or Land Value Tax, would ensure that land is generally available at a reasonable price.

If we are not owed land then restraints, disincentives on (excessive) land ownership will result in the availability of land at reasonable prices, for those that have no land. A disincentive to hoard a large quantity of property will result in more efficient use of resources.

A wealth ceiling would make the use of property more efficient

A property, or wealth, ceiling would have the advantages of (derived from) making sure that resources are being used efficiently. This means that when someone has above a certain threshold of property, they will not be permitted to obtain more. Further acquisitions will not be recognised and existing property above that level will be repossessed. This means that people are able to only be wealthy up to a certain point. People are prevented from hoarding assets and (thereby, in doing so) preventing the use by others who would derive greater value from them.

The nature of resources and (exclusive) property ownership means that, via rent, landlords are able to accumulate property almost unhindered, when (provided that) their rental income exceeds their cost of living. The extra income can be used to purchase more properties which, in turn may be leased out. Without a check on this process, those with property may accumulate more and more, to the detriment of the Society they are living in.

A wealth cap, or ceiling would provide a good means to ensure that the Society is not hindered by the accumulation of wealth and property by individuals so that resources can be better utilised by the rest.

We have a right to impose a land tax

Access to land is a natural right, assuming it is relatively plentiful and so to impose a tax on having too much land is not aggressive. It is legitimate to impose an inequality tax on those who have not left enough land for others. We have a right to remove people from owning land which excessively prevents others from access to land which is their natural right. If land is a natural right, then we must have the right to remove people, or to impose a tax. We have a right to impose a tax on people who have taken more land than adequately leaves enough for others.

What is our compensation for respecting property rights?

Is there a reason to accept that the current, pertaining arrangement of property ownership is equitable? We normally grant property rights when they are reciprocated; we consent not to harm others, if we ourselves will not be harmed. With land, we consent to stay and remain away from the property of others but are we being reciprocated proportionately?

If we have not been granted a sufficiency of land then is it acceptable that we are expected to respect the property rights of others? In what sense can the person who is ejected from the property and land retaliate? And if there is not equitable means to retaliate then in what sense are the existing rights legitimate?

We are owed compensation if we have no land

Welfare payments are a compensation for being landless.

Access to land is a natural right, and if we have been denied this right by others, then we are owed a debt and they (the landowners, in aggregate and those who arrange land rights) are responsible.

A remedy for the current arrangement of land inequality is the Land Value Tax, which discourages land ownership. We have a right to own our own land...

And since we have a right to own land, would it make sense for the Government to control a large portion of land and use the rent to pay citizens a dividend for this fact? The Government leases the land and with the income pays the money to the landless. If we have no land we are owed compensation from the Government.

If the Government is unable to establish that an individual has a sufficient quantity of land, the citizen is due a (perpetual, for as long as they are landless) payment in compensation. We are owed compensation for being landless.

We have a right to compensation for being without land, when others have easily sufficient land and resources are not scarce.

We only own land if everyone else has land

Since we have a right to life, then we must also have a right to land since we cannot live without land. Just as the denial of the right to life is a crime, under law, then by extension, the denial of the right to land is also a crime. It is a crime to uphold the property rights of a Nation or territory that does not provide land for all eligible individuals.

Someone who has committed a crime in the past may no longer be an eligible individual, in effect they are incarcerated.

If there are some who have no land, the land rights are not legitimate as they stand. The legitimacy of all land rights rests on all people have some land, so that they might live independently of favour of (deference to) the landed.

For land rights to be meaningful, everyone must have land.

If there are those without land in a country, then no one legitimately owns land. We only own land if everyone is provided for, with at least a sufficiency to survive. Our rights to land are in jeopardy if others do not have land.

We have a right to land because we have a right to life, and we can't live without land.

We need land to live and so therefore to deny the right to land (to exclude the landless) is a crime...

No one should be without land.

If we have no land then our natural rights have been denied

Access to land is a natural right. We should be able to have exclusive access to a parcel of land of our own, if others are able to deprive us of land. If we have no land, then we have not been granted our natural rights.

Land is a natural right, because without land we have no opportunity to live freely.

We are owed a plot of land because we have a right to life and without land we do not have the ability to sustain our own life without outside help. Without land we are able live by either selling our labour to buy food, or renting a field to grow crops, but in either case we require the consent of another person (to sell the food or rent the field); we are not able to live independently, as we should if we are granted our natural rights.

Equally and conversely, we do not have the right to prevent someone from access to land, so if we have a great amount of land and others have little, we have denied them their rights which we have no right to do; as in the Lockean Proviso.

Failure to have been granted a sufficient quantity of, or access to, land means that our right to life has been denied.

The use of land is a natural right.

We have a right to life and since it is not possible to sustain life without land, then we must too have a right to land.

A Land Dividend would equalise wealth

Progress is inevitable, people will always devise ways to improve their circumstances and these methods will always be communicated and shared, copied. Progress is unstoppable. There is no point fighting it.

In one sense, fiat currencies help alleviate the problems caused by the phenomenon of progress and development in that they provide a ready means to access Capital. If progress is made too quickly, and is too easily exploited by the managers and landlords (holders of the means of production, both instruments and subjects of labour) it means that the workers are not able to gain any advantage and it becomes impossible for them to get out of their landless situation. This is not to advocate the present banking system, only to indicate that inflation of the currency allows concentrated wealth to be diluted.

A Land Value Rent would remedy the problem of landlordism

The land owned by an individual will aggregate when they are able to lease the land for more than their living costs. Then, even with doing nothing, the person is able to accumulate more property which may also be leased out. In this way the first few people to reach the critical threshold for land aggregation will end up with a preponderance of the land.

The way to avoid this is to revoke the right for landowners to own the land for all time, they should only be ale to own the land for limited periods, after which it is put up for auction once more. This is better because then the owner will eventually be excluded from the land themselves. The aristocrats have not established their superiority for all time, it is only ever temporary.

If the cost to purchase the initial lease, in auction, is greater than it can be loaned out for, then there is no profit in landownership and the landlord will not be inclined to purchase the land in the first place. If it is not, the lessee, the tenant will want to purchase the lease directly from the State. Then, there can be no profit in becoming a landlord since the tenant will purchase the lease directly...

Permanent ownership is harmful because it means the 'owner' is able to inconvenience the others at no cost. Literally, it is a freehold. A Land Value Rent would be more appropriate than a Land Value Tax.

The rest of Society are owed rent on all owned property

The problem with the present system of land ownership is that land, currently, is owned until the end of time, forever. This is a problem because it doesn't allow for the fluidity that is required to allow change and is natural. Instead we should only be permitted to own land for limited periods. But what happens when the lease is up and we are required to purchase (lease) the land from the State once more, where does the money come from? It is issued by the Government. It is also received by the Government when renting out the land...

The scheme could be introduced by, first of all issuing fiat currency into the economy which could be means-tested in the initial stages. This would then be used by the population to rent properties from the State. This would be a 'wash' for those who currently have accommodation provided by the State at no charge.

Then, permanent ownership of properties is slowly revoked, most ownership would switch to something like a 50-year lease, or shorter. As the time approaches for repurchase the occupant will be given the option to extend for the next 10 years, perhaps at a charge. It is then that wider sections of the population begin to receive their Land Vouchers.

A Land Value Tax would create demand (need) for the State-issued Land Vouchers among the land-owning sector of the population.

Land Value Rent would mean that those currently owning property would owe, but, like everyone, would receive Land Vouchers. Suddenly the ownership of the land (the, into perpetuity ownership) begins to mean much less... but how would the (value of) the Land Value Rent be determined between differing properties? It would be a market between the Government and the population... the Government would sell to the highest bidder (with perhaps a concession to the incumbent tenant) the Government takes the highest price, even though it doesn't care about the money; there can be no fraud.

To make the transition would require, first the introduction of the Land Value Rent and secondly a secure means to issue the Vouchers to the population. Any citizen would be eligible for the vouchers.

What about lost savings? People regard their house as their own property and not something the State has the right to remove... the answer to this is for the scheme to be introduced gently, at a slow pace.

A property voucher scheme would enable property to be leased from the State

Since is it not legitimate for an item (or land) to be owned for all time, into perpetuity, then all items are rented from the rest. Then, it must come time eventually that the land we live on must be auctioned again and placed into the market.

It is the State that must auction the land, or other subjects of labour (means of production) which are purchased from everyone else...

Perhaps there could be a rule that the incumbent is able to retain the property with a bid of around 5% less than the competing bids?

We each would have a Land Purchase Credit, or Land Rental Credit which can be used to acquire land as required. So then we would each be given a particular stipend which we can choose to spend on land. Each year, we would be credited with, say, 100 units which can be spent on land which is leased from the State. They could be called Land Credits...

...all land would be leased from the Government and the State would be landlord for all properties. They could be exchanged between countries. It would be possible to sign away future credits so that a property can be secured for multiple years. Someone presently in a property would be required to sell it to the State and it would be profitable for them to dispense of the property before this eventuality.

The Land Credits would be issued so that we can each exclude others from certain property of our choice, purchased in the market. Essentially, a property voucher system.

The hoarding of land can be prevented with a property ceiling

We are best able to utilise the resources of the planet, for the good of mankind, by placing a limit on the quantity of resources which may be controlled by any one person. Where 'controlled' means the individual has the exclusive right to exclude others from the property...

People are able to have better access to the resources they need if there is a limit imposed on (the quantity, by market value of) their ownership. Owning too much means that others are excluded in a less than optimal way. It is better to make sure people can get access to resources, with an upper limit on ownership. An upper limit on land ownership means that others can gain fair access, which is advantageous.

Poor people can get access to land if to own an excess of land is made illegal. Perhaps to hoard land should be made a crime? It is better if we can prevent the hoarding of land.

Poor people would be able to get land of their own if rich people are forced to sell some of their property. Then, why not force rich people to sell (some of) their land?

Land would be more affordable if excessive ownership is made illegal

Real estate would be more affordable if the ownership of multiple properties were made illegal...

A law against multiple property ownership would reduce the cost of housing for people seeking to purchase their first home. The same applies to land, if ownership of an excessive amount of land is made illegal it would make it easier for those without land to acquire a small quantity, perhaps a share in a larger farm. Property would be more affordable if it is made illegal to own too great a quantity of land.

If excessive ownership of property is made illegal, then land and property would become more affordable.

Excessive land ownership should be fined

Either pay the Land Value Charge, or lose the land!

There should be a fine for excessive ownership of land... the word 'tax' in Land Value Tax suggests ownership of land has no negative connotations for others, and yet it does.

It is a problem if someone owns too much land, whereas it is not a problem if someone earns an income or purchases a product. A charge, or fine would reduce the problem of excessive ownership of land by individuals. A Land Value Charge, or Fine would be more appropriate than a Tax. If it is criminal, it should suffer a charge, or fine, not a tax.

It should be illegal to own an excess of property

Perhaps there should be a law against owning an excess of property? If someone owns property, be it rural or urban which exceeds what is a reasonable quantity (required) to survive, as measured by market value, should it be illegal? It should surely be illegal to own an an excess of the natural resources that we inherit...

It should be illegal to own an excessive quantity of land.

The land dividend is to protect those without land

A land dividend compensates those without land for the fact that, due to the pertaining allocation of resources, they require the permission of others (in an otherwise plentiful environment) to survive. Without either being able to rent land, or buy crops, those without land have nothing to eat. It is because of a lack of land that so many are dependent on others for their survival.

A land dividend would encourage equalisation of resources and make sure that the vulnerable are protected if they have no land...