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.

It is better if people do not own an disproportionate quantity of land

There is no reason, other than fear, why a person should respect the property rights of someone else if they have no property of their own.

The advantage of property rights is that it allows us to better arrange the allocation of resources for the most happiness. If we have no property then, clearly, the system is working against us and we have nothing to gain by respecting it. Providing there is a sufficiency, property shared is better than property owned exclusively by one person, or a small number. It is better if a small number of people do not own a disproportionate quantity of land.

Property is theft unless there is a limit on land ownership

Without a limit on property rights, they are not moral, since they will not allow the greatest happiness. A system of property rights that permits ownership of any amount land is not moral. To be valid, property rights must limit land ownership with a Lockean limit.

It makes people happy to use defensive force

Without property rights extending to things like land, we cannot live peacefully and abundantly. If we cannot retain (the product of) our labour then we will have no incentive to create it, and there will be no complexity. We have a right to deny to others what we have made ourselves, if it (ownership) is not idiosyncratic to the person who made it then there are no proper incentives. Our individual actions are immoral if we contravene that which is pragmatic. We are immoral if we reduce happiness.

The use of force in defence of property rights is then acceptable because this provides the environment which allows the most happiness. If goods are combined and we have no choice but to share, then there is little incentive to produce (we can still take the same amount) and without the incentive to produce there will be no production and people will starve. Collectivism removes the incentive to work. There is no reason to force people to share their produce. Collectivism is not pragmatic; it is pragmatic and moral to leave people alone.

It is better to let other people be free

We have no right to remove someone from an area, only to remove ourselves. We should harvest elsewhere. If someone is not sufficiently careful of our property then they are at fault and have diminished the chances for wealth and happiness.

We have no right to prevent freedom of movement, and so we have the right to destroy all property that is in our way if we are stupid. We have a right to be stupid. Taxation is stupid. It would be better to let innocent people go free and make sure we have left enough land to others. It is better to allow other people to have freedoms, where possible.

It is aggressive to defend an excess of land

It is reasonable to have a system of land rights, only if no one has violated the Lockean proviso, if this is in violation then to use force to impose this situation is not acceptable.

It is not acceptable to use force in defending land, if some of it is in violation of the Lockean proviso. Using force to defend land is not acceptable if we have too much, and to do so would be aggressive.

All land claims are invalid if someone owns an excess

To use force against another person in a justified way, requires that it must improve general wellbeing. It might be beneficial to lock up a criminal. Protecting land claims is not defensive as we cannot claim to truly own the land. When we use force to defend the land, we are using it to defend property rights and land claims themselves, not the particular plot. We are defending a system of property claims, which might be illegitimate if they (any one of them) have violated the Lockean proviso.

The system of property rights, in its entirety, is illegitimate if some of the constituents, beneficiaries are in ownership of an excess. If some people own an excess, the system of property rights is invalid.