There is utility in land ownership

Does it matter that property rights are abstract and not based in any pedagogical reasoning? It is of no consequence that property rights are only abstract. The validity, or otherwise, of property rights is unaffected by their being abstract. It doesn't matter that property rights are abstract, for them to be valid. We can own something ex nihilo (without it having been constructed by us, for example) without any justification for our doing so.

Property rights can be valid even though they are abstract.

There is utility in property ownership so, provided we offer sufficient ability to others to own their own property, we can own the natural resources of the land. The only justification required is that we have not owned too much; Saint Ambrose: superfluum quod tenes tu furaris (the superfluous property which you hold you have stolen) and if this is satisfied then we can be the rightful owner. We can own property if we do not and have not owned too much, even if that which we own is not grounded in any logical reasoning, and is abstract.