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.