Anything that is not essential is not owned

If someone doesn't want us to engage with them, in the manner that we are doing so, then we must desist from doing so unless our actions are seen as being essential and in defence. Even the justification that our actions are defensive is limited, if it is not essential; what would be the point to avenge a past crime if we are no longer threatened?

For the use of force to be legitimate it must be essential in protecting our existence. It would then not be legitimate to reclaim land that has been stolen if we retain a sufficiency.

If land is used as a store of wealth then it leads us to the problem of others being prevented from having land to grow crops, when we derive no particular (justifiable) advantage from the land. The landowner wants to keep others from using the land, not to retain their own use of the land, but instead so as not to lose wealth. The landowner could rent out a field, or let others use that land, but will not want to do so to avoid the ownership being placed into dispute.

The use of force is only justified if it is essential, even against someone who has done a crime.

If we own an excess of the Means of Production, be it instruments of labour (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) or subjects of labour (natural resources and raw materials) then it makes economic sense to continue to produce goods, even if there is no personal demand. It is a consequence of our ability to store wealth, in a fashion, that creates this demand for unbidden production. It is because the demand exists in an ongoing way, in the form of the market, that we are able to discover a demand for all production.

If we have more land, and other assets, resources, property than we require then we have an incentive to drive consumption above what it must be, to meet our needs.

If we have no right to defend land, and other possessions, beyond what is required as a necessity to live with then the rest of the land becomes common land. And we would have no right to lease out the Means of Production in the way that many do today...

We contest the right of the landowner to claim the land that currently they control.

If we have no assets, or property, we will not be able to survive (so we can claim to own some land) but can it be owned if it is not required by the freeholder? The default would, should be that the land is owned by no one, not that it is owned by a person, whoever that might be.

To be legitimate, if we can only use force when we must, then all claims to property are valid only if the land is essential for survival. If we have more Capital than we need, then that should be left to the commons.