You're just... repeating the same argument. Maybe you're not understanding the use of the terminology? Your point is a "de jure" argument, you're telling me w

You're just... repeating the same argument. Maybe you're not understanding the use of the terminology? Your point is a "de jure" argument, you're telling me what the law says (and for the record: I don't disagree). I'm making a "de facto" point: regardless of what the law says, owning large unbroken tracts of land in this area is a practical impossibility. And since the entity refusing to sell the land is the government itself (the body that makes and enforces those laws), I don't think it's at all a stretch to categorize this as de facto illegal: any action that resulted in big ranches not being impossible as a matter of practice would be by definition an act of lawmaking. Stated slightly differently: if the government needs to change a law in order to make something possible, then that thing was "illegal" previously.