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.