If property is a product of one’s labor, how can land be property? Crops are property of the one who labor to producte it. But he has not labored to produce land. Locke says that because exclusive right land was necessary for his labor to produce crops, therefore land can become property. But in order to have exclusive use we do not have to have property, ius in re, over land, but possesion, usufruct, ius ad rem, over land. Therefore, land cannot be defended as property.
Also, that property can exist is a sequitur that we are owner’s of our own actions, of our labor, because we are owner of ourselves. Selfownership, and it’s correlate- ownership of our actions follows from de facto situation- that we are the only ones that can control ourselves, and no one else can control our body with his thoughts, therefore no one can be owner of my body or my actions except me. What logically follows is that alienation of body (in slavery) is illegitimate, no mater if the slave gives his consent. Also what logically follows is that alienation of one’s labor is too illegitimate, no matter if the serf/ employee gives his consent. All property gained trough someone else’s alienation of their own body or labor is illegitimate.
As much as the marxist is wrong about abolishing property, capitalism is not so much better, because I don’t see how can land be legitimate property or how can employment be legitimate.