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.