The right to use nature vs. private property on nature

Natural law can be distilled to two things: the right to life (equal in dignity) and the right to use nature (also referred to as common property). Without these two assumptions, there can be no liberty. Other derivative true rights come from these two. For example, the right to speech comes from the right to use nature - consider, vocal speech is the right to use the air to generate sound waves to convey ideas to another person. Hence temporal and intermittent possession, control, exclusion, enjoyment are already covered by the right to use.

However, a property right to land (and Nature in general) indefinitely entails: the right of possession + the right of control + the right of exclusion + the right of enjoyment + the right of disposition. There's no universal natural law that says people may have this "bundle of rights" to land - but many here pretend it is natural law. In fact, property rights on land is merely a claim backed by a threat of force, and therefore by aggression and nothing else.

The problem is that property rights on land harms others; this is measurable by market means as it is the economic rent a title holder demands from others either to use the land (rental), or to have the title transferred to them (exchange), or without the payment of rental or the full amount of the market price, the denial of others from the economic benefits of the land. It's as if the title holder of land should take the credit for the activity around the land and even the weather.

Henry George gave a succinct solution to this problem - common property on land means its economic rent should remain common.