Land reforms would reduce aggression and unease within the population

The law should not allow people to own an excess of land, as defined by the Lockean proviso. If the law allows people to own an excess of land it should be amended. The law is not legitimate if it allows excessive property ownership because to be legitimate, the law must be to the advantage of the community. It is not helpful if people are permitted to control all the land.

Property rights are useful provided they do not establish (and maintain) land tyranny, in which case they will be overthrown.To prevent the occurrence of violent riots and the overthrow of the existing arrangement, inequality should be addressed.

There will be no riots if there is land reform.

Land ownership can be allocated more evenly if the Government ceases to subsidise property rights

The Government should stop subsidising (excessive) property ownership. There are natural costs associated with owning property, and making sure others do not trespass, this includes collaborating with our neighbours and being open to the suggestion that we have occupied too much land. If the Government removes these costs, by subsidising property ownership then people will be more inclined to own property which can lead to land accumulating into the hands of just a few people. If land ownership is not subsidised then it will be utilised more evenly.

The best style of Government is Georgism unless we have outright anarchy

Inequality would not exist in an anarchist system (without a Government) because people would be compelled to provide their own property protection, and this would reduce the incentive to hoard property. However, since we do at the present time have subsidised property that means we observe a rise in inequality. Because of this, and if the Government is entitled to impose taxation, then we might seek ways in which to reduce this problem which will then lead to less demand for State benefits.

If land ownership carries a cost, as it would do if property taxes were imposed, this would lead to a lessening of inequality.

Replacing transaction taxes, such as the income tax, with property taxes directed at land ownership would reduce inequality and subsequently reduce the size of the State. A land tax would reduce inequality and give wealth to more people which would lead to (a smaller State and) more modest taxation in other forms. To impose a system of Georgist taxes would result in the size of the State being reduced. Unless we have outright anarchy, which would lead to the most equitable arrangement, a Georgist system of Government will be the least aggressive.

Anarchy would mean that everyone would have a reasonable claim to the land

There is a natural risk to property ownership, particularly land.

If someone thinks you have taken too much land, they might want to have use of it but would be fearful that you are prepared to use force in defending your land. If so they may choose to preemptively attack you. If we seek to claim property we risk preemptive attack.

We can reduce the risk that we will be attacked by someone who wants (to have) use of our land, by owning only a small quantity. If we own a little land there is less chance of being killed, provided land ownership is not subsidised which removes (or reduces) the risk.

Owning land is risky.

Without the Government to protect them people will be naturally inclined to own and claim only a small proportion of the land available, so that they do not risk getting killed. There are no landlords in an anarchist system.

If land is subsidised then it will tend to be owned by fewer and fewer people

Excessive land ownership is unjustifiable.

We can justify property ownership on pragmatic grounds, it is effective to own what we make because that way we retain the incentive to create. It is also effective to own a certain amount of land because if we have our own plot, we will better take care of the land.

If we seek the right to exclude others from the use of land or property, we must at least have a justification without such we are simply being aggressive when the land is defended, or threats are made for defence. It is aggressive to 'defend' land if we own an excess.

We should not be able to (it is immoral and aggressive to) protect land if we own an excess. There is no reason to defend an excess of land, it is not a vital and justifiable use of force and not descalating the situation. The State could seize land that is owned by someone with an excess and sell it into the market, which would allow others to live more freely. The property could be expropriated via either eminent domain or compulsory purchase.

If the Government expropriated land from those who own an excess, in violation of the Lockean proviso then land would be (able to be) more efficiently used. Land inequality might lead to (result in) land expropriation, which might be seen as theft.

There is a natural tendency for land and wealth to cluster (and accumulate) into the hands of a small number of people. If someone owns a lot of a rentable property such as land it is easy for them to acquire more because their living costs will always be below their aggregate rent income. Land tends to be owned by fewer and fewer people, as time progresses.

We do not own more than an upper ceiling of land

We do not own property, in the conventional sense, if the Government does not recognise our claims to the land. And if the land ownership is too not recognised by others then it cannot reliably be said to be owned. By definition, like all things, property claims are a matter of opinion. Generally it is held that the Government authority in a jurisdiction will make the final ruling, that is the Government dictates what property is owned by whom. If we own property it is our view that no one, not even the Government has a rightful claim over (and above) that which we make for ourselves. We might not think that someone with an excess of land is the true owner.

We can only own land if we do not claim an excess.

The Government should not recognise excessive property ownership

It's not very nice to own an excess of land.

It is better if we allow others to have use of land also, even if we have the legal right to exclude them, so that they are able to grow their own crops and prosper. It is good to let others do well, even if we can prevent it. It is better to be surrounded by happy people.

Owning an excess of land is unpleasant because we are preventing life around us from flourishing, even though there is nothing to fear from the practice and we are not being aggressive. Owning an excess of land is being exploitative, we are exploiting the poverty of others.

The world can be made more equal if we impose restrictions on the acquisition and ownership of property. We are defending ourselves against the unfairness of history and the limited nature of some resources. It is not the fault of property owners if they own too much, they have not been aggressive. A healthy Society would restrict (not recognise) excessive property ownership.