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.