There are people who argue that land ownership in general is unjustified. One argument is that the areas of land in question are often many times larger than w

There are people who argue that land ownership in general is unjustified. One argument is that the areas of land in question are often many times larger than what the owner has used or can use; for example, in the early history of America, there were small groups of individuals (e.g. [1]) who found areas of hundreds of thousands of acres, surveyed them, and were then granted exclusive ownership of them by the reigning government. These people may have a point; no theory of homesteading could possibly justify those land claims. So let's concern ourselves with material goods for now: The processes of making most useful material goods, today, involve long setups where you take input materials X and Y, use equipment A to do step 1, use equipment B to do step 2, add material Z and use equipment C to do step 3, and so on. The process wouldn't work if some people decided they wanted to use equipment B for something else and just took it. If there is no ownership of property, what is there to prevent that from happening? You mention a bootmaker. Why can't some random person decide he wants to use one of the bootmaker's tools for his own projects, take it, and stop the bootmaker from accomplishing anything? On the other hand, if the bootmaker does have some kind of right to prevent the rando from taking the tools he's accustomed to using—by force, if the rando is stubborn—then that's starting to sound like ownership, and I don't understand how this might differ from the conventional treatment of material goods as ownable property. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Company