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.