Here is my argument as follows.
1. Moral obligations do not intrinsically exist since humans do not have pre-existent knowledge of concepts and of Nature in general. Thus, we're are left with one possible course for all moral acts; Causality.
2. Because morality is prefaced on causality, in the form of acts with consequences, no one person owes another person anything than what they promised to fulfill.
3. Since promises in this view are extrinsic, meaning I derive them through external acts of my own will and that of others participating, they do not become inherited[sp?] by others without qualification(Or to take a phrase from the Bible: The sins of the fathers shall NOT be visited upon the sons.).
4. Because of this form of moral causality, and non-intrinsic inheritability of promises, all economic activities follow in similar form; being that no one is owed anything and no one owes anything to others.
5. When I control or own land, I am doing so of my own free will and thus I maintain the property as I see fit. No one is deprived of anything by one owning a parcel, even in a land starved nation since morality is causal.
6. And as such, economics is causal in turn. An individual can realize that the maintainance of a land property is non-arbitrary so long as the maintainance is for the good of the owner. Thus, a land owner will be driven to make the land useful for the maximal number of people simply because of the need to sustain one's own life[e.g. you got to eat and such, DUH].
7. From that land ownership betters society as a whole since it is labor[CAUSALITY] driven. Each person owns land to make something on that land and they maintain it to their maximal necessity[a businessman keeping the parking lot clean, and keeping prices low for customers. Or a home owner mowing the lawn, inviting the neighbors for BBQ, and such.].
8. Thus, no one owes anyone else land, or use of land intrinsically since the use of land IS LABOR[CAUSALITY] DRIVEN. Land does not stay fallow unless there is no viable use of the land, period and end of story.
9. And since I started my moral principle from that of no one person owing another anything, and vice versa, to say that anyone owes anything to anyone else is flawed since all actions of economic expansions are derived from labor[physical and mental]. Thus, your argument needs to the inverse of mine, and if it is, you must prove it is viable over mine. Because, remember, mine is not the mainstay of modern economic or moral life either. Yours is as fringe as mine. It's just mine can easily follow the current mainstay but without the need of governmental interference.
-- Bridget