Excessive land ownership is illegitimate if others have no land

It is not pragmatic to allow people to violate the Lockean proviso, by definition we do not make the best use of resources. It is not moral if we do not allow others to make use of resources that we are not making good use of ourselves. It is immoral to restrict others from the use of property that we do not need to have use of, not to share what we can afford to let others have use of. There is a lack of morality in not sharing.

It is immoral to own more land that we require.

It is immoral to own an excess of land, but this crime is not defined by aggression and the use of force. Being rich, and buying land pushes up the price of land, but land is limited in supply, unlike goods which can be reproduced by hand. Land would not be expensive if we are not permitted to own an excess. Land is expensive because the State removes the natural costs to owning land, which include protection. There is a problem if land is not available (to the poor) at a reasonable price.

Land will be expensive if some people are permitted to own a sizeable majority of the land, for investment purposes. To justify land ownership we must show that there are others who have a less legitimate claim, subject to the qualification that below a certain level no one is required to make such a justification. If we assume an abundance of resources, that there is enough food to go around, then we cannot claim that, without an excess of land we will starve. In this case there is no justification, instead we only make the point that no others have a (more) legitimate claim. But there are others with a more legitimate claim, by definition since we have violated the Lockean proviso.

If there are people who have a need for land then we have no right to own an excess of land.