Land ownership is false since objects which are not of our own making can only be rented

We do not have a right to own land, we must (may) do so only with the consent of our neighbours, since we seek to exclude them and we did not make the land ourselves. No one should be given exclusive access to all of the land, otherwise the rest (of the population) end up as economic serfs, since they must rent land to live. Then, if no one can have all of the land no one can own any of the land, it can only be rented.

If we are sympathetic to our neighbours we will own only a modest quantity of land

The Government should not be a charity.

The aim of the Government should not be to help the poor, only to protect rights and perhaps to discourage the rich from owning too much property. It is a form of protection, and a defence of natural rights to enable resources to be made available at a cheap price. If land is too expensive the Government is able to tax landowners (not too much!) so that prices will fall. A tax on land is a justified intervention into the market as it would protect poor people. We can only reasonably use force if there is a good outcome.

It is a type of crime to fail to leave enough resources for the rest of the community. If in this way, we are selfish then we have committed a form of crime as it demonstrates a failure to be sympathetic to our neighbours.

A minimum quantity of land held by everyone would prevent economic serfdom and problems with onerous rents

Without land we cannot live, but if land is a natural right, this presents the practical problem of how to ensure everyone has land when it can be freely sold. If we can sell our land and then claim more, since it is our natural right it will be possible to live continually without having to pay for anything. If we are given land by Society, we can deduce that those who have made the land available do not want it to be sold, as this would no longer solve the problem of poverty for which the land was given. If people are prevented from selling their land, below a certain threshold, this ensures that donations of land are not wasted. The same outcome is achieved if the Government keeps aside a fund to make sure the money is not wasted, which enables the land to be sold and the individual is able to move to a different plot. If we are not able to have less than a particular level of wealth, land, to ensure that we can survive, guaranteed by the Government then the problem of economic serfdom and oppressive rents will disappear.

To better manage natural resources the Government can seize land from those who own an excess and sell it into the market

If someone owns an excess of land, to the extent that it violates the Lockean proviso, they are damaging their neighbours by needlessly depriving them of natural resources. Even though the landowner has not initiated a crime, they are harming the lives of others, to remedy this it is reasonable that the Government, representing the majority opinion take action. The Government can suggest that the owner sell their land, or at least a portion of it, failure to do so will result in the land being secured for the benefit of the State, who will then sell the land into the market, reducing prices. It is reasonable for the Government to seize the land to improve access to natural resources, for the bulk of the population.

If the Government fails to manage natural resources in this way, we might end up with a situation whereby a single person, or a small number of persons is able to rent out the land to the remainder of the population, causing them unnecessary hardship.

Land prices would be improved if the Government authorities seized land from the rich and sold it into the market

If land ownership is justified from a utilitarian perspective then, naturally, we seek to maximise the advantage for the most people. If land is being monopolised for a small number of people, so that a greater number have no choice but to pay rent, to survive, then the property structure has failed. In this scenario, the majority are justified to seize the land and may then sell it again, into the community. To prevent this, the original landowner is able to sell the land in anticipation of it being seized and consume the wealth.

If land is too expensive a possible remedy is to seize the land of those who own an excess and release it into the market, which will reduce prices. There is no reason why the Government should not seize the land of those who own an excess and sell it into the market.

It would improve prices for the Government to seize land and sell it into the market.

There is no reason for anyone to recognise land claims if they violate the Lockean proviso

If the Government does not impose a limit to Capital wealth, land prices will remain high and it will be difficult for younger generations to obtain property. An economic threshold exists whereby our spending falls below the achievable rental income from our property, and at that point we are able to constantly increase our wealth and property (if it is available for sale) without doing any real work. This is damaging to the economy, not only because, as a landlord, we now have no incentive to make a positive contribution but also because it makes land too expensive for the rest of the population. Without a land tax, property will constantly escalate in price as a greater and greater proportion of it falls into the hands of the landlord class.

Unfortunately, land is limited in extent, which means that it is possible to harm others indirectly by excluding them from natural property. It is considerate not to own too much land, but if people fail to show this thoughtfulness we have no obligation to respect their property claims.

We do not truly own land, because we have not created it. When the State sells, or makes available a piece of property they sell the recognition that they will eject other people, if desired, from the land if they trespass. The State has the right to refuse to protect the person, for whatever reason.

Past history is not a justification for land ownership if we are being tyrannical from an economic perspective to our neighbours and tenants

A ceiling on land ownership would give people more of an incentive to work because it would be possible for them to buy their own property and become free, hence reducing poverty. A form of serfdom results from unequal land ownership. Many people are poor for lack of access to Capital; our labour (our personal Capital) is worth very little because it can be sold for only a small amount of land. We are poor (assuming we would like more land, if we have no land) because land is so expensive.

We are wealthy if Capital is inexpensive, and so a Land Value Ceiling would create wealth and economic freedom, we would no longer be so reliant upon the State. It is a right of free people to place a disincentive against the property claims of others, as a matter of defence because they (the landless) are desperate for land. We cannot take care of our own affairs if we do not have sufficient land. The ballot box enables people to make a property claim on land currently owned by others.

If other wealthy people are able to retain their land, it makes giving up our own land less worthwhile.

An organised system of property rights allows people to spend less time defending their land, and is advantageous for that reason. To reach a compromise between people who each want the land available we must assume each has an equal claim, it is also true that we (most often) would rather have a certainty of some land than the chance of nothing. If we have no respect for existing land claims and what has gone before then everyone would, presumably, start with roughly equal plots or at least there would be a punitive ceiling. If we have absolute respect for what has gone before then nothing changes. It matters less that the incumbent landowner has lawfully acquired the property than that their ownership is detrimental to the existence of the rest of the population.