The Land Value Tax is a peaceful way to encourage landowners to release their property

It is possible to regard the Land Value Tax as a form of retaliation against landowners. If the State does not have the right to tax land then landowners might be able to acquire an increasingly large quantity, as they are able to rent out the land at more than their living costs.

Taxing land has the helpful externality that land prices will fall. If there is no disincentive against owning land then land costs will constantly increase as the cost of living falls, as landowners need to spend less of their money, due to technological and political improvements. If there is not a (legal) disincentive against owning land it will not be made available to those without land at an affordable price.

We have a right to go wherever we like but not to hurt anyone or thing

Our presence in the wrong place does not cause damage.

Whist criminal damage is a crime, the violation of 'property' is not a crime. Without damage, property cannot be violated because, to violate it, it must not have been in use and must have been available and there is no loss so we cannot violate property and hence there is no valid claim such as property. A claim to property is a false claim. We do not have property rights, we only have the right not to be damaged and for objects (not owned by any single person) not to be damaged. A crime against (a) person or object is a crime against everyone.

We own nothing, but retain the right not to be hurt and for objects we are concerned about not to be damaged. We do not have a right to exclude someone from a piece of space, or property. We are entitled to go anywhere provided we do not cause damage.

Land will not be allowed to become too expensive if there is a restriction on land acquisition

If land acquisition might be unlimited people will worry about getting land of their own. If land is limited then we can be assured that land prices will be reasonable and people can get their own land. It would make people happy to know that there is a limit on land ownership. The absence of a land (value) ceiling creates fear and anxiety because market forces could cause starvation. We can make sure that land prices do not become too expensive if there is a limit on land ownership.

Land rights are not justified unless there is a ceiling on the amount that may be owned

It is inconsistent to support land rights without being in favour of a limit, or cap on land ownership. We cannot make land so to have land ownership relies on the argument that to do so provides positive utility. This means that we are better off to have (and allow) land ownership, but if land is 'monopolised' by a small number of people, this utility evaporates. We can only (justifiably) defend (the argument of) land ownership if we are prepared to have a ceiling, or cap on the amount of land that a single individual may own.

It is a crime of omission that some people are permitted to own an excess of land

There is no other crime of omission than to fail to maximise the utility of resources. If we do not make good use of what is given to us, this is a crime of omission. We have no obligation to use our resources for others, only to use them well. Owning an excess of land is not to use the land well when we can benefit from the prosperity derived from making the land available to other people.

It is a crime to be in possession of an excess of land because, to some extent, the land is property of us all. Regretfully, we must own some of the land to better grow crops and build property but the less land we use the better it is for our neighbours. We tolerate the land ownership of others, so that we might too have our own land. Since land ownership is objectionable to everyone else, it is best to minimise it on a personal level.

We are entitled to object to excessive land ownership and there is nothing wrong with a limit on land acquisition. We have a right to own land only if by doing so, we improve the environment and provide positive utility. It is not helpful for someone to have an excess of land and consequently the land ownership is illegitimate.

A Land Value Ceiling would reduce land prices and make more land available to the market

The dimensions of the Earth are finite which means that, for land to be used optimally, it is best that individuals are prevented from taking control of too great a portion. Land occupation can be restricted with the introduction of a Land Value Ceiling, since land is not infinite. It is not good to tolerate a free market in commodities which are limited in supply, only those things which can be made and reproduced.

When we own land rights this means there is less land available for others and there is no way to reduce this 'externality' (other) than to introduce a limit on how much land we can own. Owning land affects other people and, to reduce this effect we can limit land rights which makes more land available and make it easier for people to purchase land at a reasonable price.

Land ownership requires that our neighbours be compensated to their satisfaction

If we seek to own property that is limited in quantity, such as land (the existence of which precedes us) then it is reasonable to pay a compensatory fee to our neighbours for this inconvenience. If we have not properly compensated our neighbours (and they, us) for our ownership of a limited resource then we cannot truly claim that the land is owned by us. To own land we must (it is an obligation, with ownership being contingent on its satisfaction) pay our neighbours. We do not own the land unless we have paid the appropriate land taxes.