A Lockean limit would improve land prices

It should not have been possible to become the owner of an excess of land. Individuals should not be allowed to own an excess of land.

It should be against the law (and is aggressive) to violate the Lockean proviso. It is a crime to have allowed such an acquisition to (have) take(n) place, and a crime to have become the owner of an excess of land. The land has been wrongfully acquired. We should not have the right to buy so much land that our ownership adversely influences other people, beyond what they might reasonably expect. It should not have been possible to get so much land and reparations are justified in the form of 'forcing' people to sell (some of) their land. It is justified to force people to sell their land because a crime has been committed in its acquisition. If a crime has been committed then reparations are justified, assuming this will improve the existing environment.

It would improve the environment to impose a Lockean ceiling on the ownership of land. Owning an excess of land means that a crime has been committed in the past and it would be better if no one is allowed to keep such an extent of property, specifically land.

The poor cannot get enough land because of the lack of an upper limit. A Lockean limit would make it easier for the poor to get land at a reasonable price; it would improve land prices.

Excessive land ownership is one of the causes of poverty

Excessive (defined by the Lockean proviso) land ownership is theft.

There is only a limited quantity of land and so the rich are responsible for (the cause of) the poverty of the poor, as far as land rights are concerned. If we own only a modest amount of land then we are not responsible for causing the poverty of others. We cause poverty if we own more than a modest amount of land. Owning too much land causes poverty.

It is a crime to deny to others access to a vital resource

It is a crime to remove an excessive quantity of land from use by the rest of the population. Owning lots of land is aggressive.

It is a crime to remove from use a vital resource; it is a crime to remove oxygen from the air supply just as it is a crime to pollute the air. It is then a crime to own an excess (defined by the Lockean proviso) of land since this removes the ability of others to have access to land, which is a vital resource.

A land ownership limit would reduce crime

The best way to reduce crime would be to introduce a Lockean ceiling on the ownership of land.

There will be more crime if people do not have sufficient access to land. If they cannot live independently and are not able to find suitable employment, then people will resort to crime to survive and (or) live well. Then, more reasonable distribution of land ownership (rights) would reduce crime. The imposition, introduction of a Lockean ceiling would reduce crime.

If we own an excess of land then it is not being put to good use

If land is not being put to good use (by its present owners) then it is rightly owned by other people. We measure whether the land is being put to good use in relation to the rest of the population. We are not putting the land to good use if we have an excess and others are in need. Land is not being put to good use if we have violated the Lockean proviso. The Lockean ceiling is the point beyond which land cannot be put to good use by an individual.

If we own an excess of land this means we are not able to put it to good use.

The land is owned by those whom can make the best use of it

The Lockean proviso alone is sufficient reason to deny property claims.

If property claims are to be considered legitimate they must increase the general wellbeing, by definition, and so it is reasonable to have a mechanism whereby it is possible to prevent land (and perhaps other forms of property) ownership from being dominated by a small number of individuals. In the same sense that we are not able to own a person, even if willingly sold, so too are we unable to own an excess of land. If the land can be put to (much) better use by (a sample of) the rest of the population then it ceases to be owned by the original owner.

If land can be put to (much) better use by others, then it is rightly owned by them.

The land is owned by those whom can make the best use of it, at the price and it is not owned by someone who fails to do the same. If someone is not making good use of the land, from the perspective of those who might make better use of it then the land ceases to be owned by the incumbent occupant. The land is not owned by someone who is not making good use of the land.

The courts do not yet recognise the arguments behind the Lockean proviso

Property rights, in particular land rights can be arranged by consensus so that we do not rely on disputes being settled among and between the adversaries. If there is a property dispute, this will mean that one party is of the view that another is trespassing. Rather than take action themselves, in defence as they see it, if they are only an individual entity and not the upholding authority, they will (can) refer this complaint to the courts who will find for one or the other side.

In the case of excessive land claims, the complainant (the instigator) is able (we presume) to occupy the land and later await the decision of the tribunal. If the courts do not eject the trespassers (squatters) then the land changes hands and ownership will transfer to the new occupants.

If there is a property dispute, it is rightly referred to the judicial authority. If land claims are unpopular then to test them in court, we must first occupy the land, perhaps.

Alternatively, we might seek permission (beforehand) to occupy the land and request an opinion on the merits of the claim. The courts should take into consideration the limited nature of land, and that we do not make it ourselves; it is here before us, when making their deliberations on property claims. Presently, the courts do not generally give consideration to the issues raised by the Lockean proviso.