We have no formal mechanism with which to express our lack of consent to excessive property acquisition

If the people who own the land are excessively wealthy, and have no need for an income, as we can assume, they cannot be relied upon to provide labour or cheap food. The food in the orchard might be rotting in the trees but because we are landless, we have nothing of value to offer in exchange, not even our labour and there is no economic reason for the landowner to offer the fruit to the surrounding population...

For the ownership of the orchard and farmland to be legitimate requires the consent of the surrounding neighbours. If land is legitimately owned, it may be sold (and we can assume the domestic population will be indifferent to the nature of the (new) occupant) but to maintain ownership we must have the (continuing) consent of our neighbours. If we want to defend and own a piece of property, this amounts to a request made to our neighbours for that consent.

To some people it might not be acceptable (they might not agree to consent, to respecting the land property rights) that someone might own an excess of land. In this situation we withhold our consent. Since property rights rely on the consent of the surrounding population, there must be a mechanism with which we are able to control the (excessive) land acquisition of others. A Democratically chosen Land Value Ceiling would be a suitable such mechanism. This would formalise the nature of property rights which rely upon consent.