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.