Land ownership is criminal if there is no ceiling

To be able to own an unlimited amount of land is detrimental to the rest of society and as a consequence it is detrimental to the owner themselves. If we own an excessive extent of land then we exclude the rest of the population from that land by definition... land is finite. So we are causing hardship for other people if we own an excessive amount of land. An analogy can be drawn with another scarce resource which is water in a desert. If we take all the water for ourselves and exclude other people from having access to the water we have done harm to our environment. It is best if we claim to own a piece of land or other natural and scarce resource that we do not take too much of it otherwise we will be damaging to the rest of the population and as a result... ultimately damaging to ourselves. If we desire to claim (exclusive access to) land then we have an obligation to make sure none of the owners has too much land. If we want to own land then for this not to be criminal requires that we impose a ceiling on the amount of land that an individual is able to own. If there is no such ceiling then it is possible that the system of land ownership in place is a criminal system.

A description of land hoarding

Land hoarding is a phenomenon (symptom) of enabling people to 'own' land at the discretion of the state. This means that when a land dispute arises between a land-owner and a trespasser or 'squatter' the state will intervene to determine who has the true claim. This means that land can be owned and then that land hoarding is possible. The obvious negative consequences of land hoarding are that people will find it difficult to get their own land and a place to live if all the land has been taken. To help prevent this type of land hoarding it is possible to place constraints on land ownership. We can do this by enabling a person to own up to a certain amount of land (measured in area or market value) but no more. If there is a limit on the amount of land it is possible for an individual to own (according to the state) then it will be easier for the rest of the population to get their own land. If there is no limit (or tax) then it is likely that (some) people will choose to hoard the land to the disadvantage of the rest of the population. To prevent land hoarding the state should impose a limit above which it is not possible for a person to own land. If there is not a limit on land ownership land hoarding will result.

Land ownership is socialism

If we own land we are depriving other people of its use by definition. If we cannot deprive other people of the use of land we do not own land. We own the ability to eject people from an area of land. And this is a form of socialism. It is because other people consent to our ownership of the land that we are able to own the land. The group will work together to preserve the existing land claims and over-power the person who does not respect these claims. So land ownership is concerned with the power of the group over the individual and as such it is a form of socialism.

Only land reform will help the poor

Capitalism doesn't work very well if there is not some kind of impediment on owning an excess of land. The reason for this is that if people are permitted by the economy to accumulate land there is no natural impediment on excessive disparities emerging. If people can own an unlimited amount of land they will do so to the detriment of the rest of the economy. People with land are able to lease the land (or work it themselves) which means they have a certain (high) income above their costs. They can earn much more than they spend and (if it is available) they are able to buy yet more land increasing the problem. People without land find it very difficult to get land of their own because those with land have no reason to sell it... in fact they want more. If land is made cheap by a tax or levy... or an upper limit imposed on the amount of land a single person is able to own then this problem is remedied. If people cannot own more than an upper bound of land (in value) then this enables the rest of the economy to acquire their own which means they can get out of poverty. People cannot get out of poverty if they are not able to get their own land which they will not be able to do if there is no (non-market) restriction imposed on the ownership of land. If the government (or those who dictate property rights) do not pay attention to the accumulation of land then the economy will become increasingly dysfunctional and oppressive to the poor. The poor will not be able to get out of poverty and have their own land if the government (or similar) does not pay attention to land and prevent monopolisation of land. If the government is not attentive to this issue the poor will get increasingly poor. The poor will not be able to get out of poverty if the government does not pay attention to the accumulation of land by the few. If there is not a Land Value Tax or similar the poor will be forever trapped without land. The poor will not be able to get land if there is not a Land Value Tax or similar. Capitalism will remain oppressive to the poor if there is not a LVT (or similar). If there is a LVT then land becomes cheap and everyone will be comfortable. Without a LVT land will be expensive and serve as the primary means to save wealth... placing a burden on those who are poor and have no land. The poor will be given (economic) freedom if there is a LVT or similar. If the government does not pay attention to the issue of land ownership the poor will remain poor. Capitalism doesn't work for the poor if there is no limit on land ownership. If land is able to be monopolised then the poor will remain poor. The only way for the poor to get out of poverty is if there is a LVT or something similar.

Capital earns its own income

There is a difference between 'farming' and other types of work... with farming we must only maintain the status quo and we will be fed and wealthy. With other types of work (such as being employed on a farm) we must continue to work otherwise we will starve. The farmer must only maintain their property for a harvest to be assured... the work is driven by the environment... when the seasons change the crop is sown... when it grows it is harvested. Provided the farmer is able to keep up with these demands then they will be rich. For workers of the other type it is not enough to keep up with events... even by doing so we have no guarantee of being rich. We have no capital which will earn an income.

Only farmers can be self-employed

Only (subsistence) farmers are self-employed... anyone who has a job or even someone who has a business with customers is not self-employed. They rely on their boss (or customers) for an income. We can only be self-employed if we can sustain ourselves directly from what we produce. If there is a transaction before we get what we want then we are not independent of the economy.

There is nothing magical about land

The advantage of land over other assets is that with land we can grow our own food and survive independently. But that is all (it does not give us access to any other part of the economy... food is not necessarily that valuable). Subsistence farmers are often poor.

All other types of sustenance rely on employment... either by a boss (or manager) directly or if we have a business by our customers. In either case we can be replaced by technology. Technology is a threat to every employee and business owner and so only if we have our own land can we be immune from (replacement by) technology. (We can be self-employed if we have our own land.) But that doesn't mean there is anything to celebrate in the ownership of land... we might not be rich. All that is guaranteed by land is a basic level of sustenance. It doesn't mean that we will be able to afford anything which is happening outside of our local farming economy. The subsistence farmer does not have much to offer the wider economy apart from excess food.

There is nothing to particularly celebrate in having our own land... it is an insurance option against unemployability but not much more than that.