Excessive land claims are unpopular and hence illegitimate

Often, where land rights are protected free of charge by the State police service, or army, the rich are subsidised by the poor; if we pay nothing to have our land protected then this is an advantage which is disproportionately beneficial to the rich, since they have the most land. Socialism (often) subsidises the rich at the expense of the poor. The best way to remedy this situation, if property rights are (still) to be recognised by a coercive State, is to impose a Lockean limit, or Lockean ceiling on the quantity of land that may be owned.

A Lockean ceiling would reduce land inequality.

Inequality is exacerbated if the natural costs of (protecting) land ownership are removed. The rich naturally have a cost (falling on them) when they seek to own an excessive quantity of land in that they must seek the consent of their neighbours. We can only properly be said to own property if it is with the consent of the people affected; those who are our neighbours.

Property rights are organised by (and derived from) consensus, whether force is being used aggressively, or defensively, depends on the opinion of other members of the group and is otherwise arbitrary. If the State defends property claims which are unpopular with the group then the beneficiary is receiving a subsidy. A Lockean limit or ceiling would reduce the extent to which the State is expected to defend unpopular land claims.

Land claims are illegitimate if they are unpopular.