On Property Right

I. It all started with protecting the Right to stay on land occupied by the use of violence or for no reason. The "Natural rights" discussion does not help much here. The only justification for such Rights is society's stability.

II. Tangible property is finite. All "added value" factors are not infinite. Raw materials, a person's time and effort, and the existing population are finite. Only non-tangible or intellectual creations aren't limited.  

III. A tangible property one owns someone else can not hold.

IV. The State must protect the Right to a dignified human life.

V. The State must protect everyone's Property Rights.  

VI. Given I, II, the ideals mentioned in IV and V are more fundamental than the Right to Property "Limitless" .

VII. The absolutist view on the Right of Property is a dogma, not a discussion of ethics.

VIII. If the Right of one completely excludes similar Rights for others, it is an evil tyranny.

IX. Setting a limit on Property Rights does not suppress that Right. It only ensures that the Right of one does not exclude the Right of another.

X. As a result, it is legitimate that the State limits how much one can hold if it can only ensure IV and V that way.

XI. The State can use excess property in many social well-being increases - which is its purpose. It can redistribute, e.g., through a Universal Basic Income or public services.

Conclusion:

A State doesn't need to protect the limitless ownership of an individual. Instead, it must defend individuals who can't own anything if nothing remains to hold. There shouldn't be any limits to that. If State needs to limit Property Rights, nothing can forbid it.