And we're back to where we started. You have the wrong approach to property claims in the same way Locke had the wrong approach:
I don't have the "wrong approach" - nothing I've said is non factual.
It doesn't matter whether an object was "created" in a Lockean sense, or pre-existed before anyone touched it.
Yes, it does.
Why?
Because with one you can have a series of events which you can point to in order to allocate property rights - i.e. you make it, it's yours and with the other, there is no such evidence procedure possible.
Where there is no evidence procedure available the only viable mechanism for allocation is violence because theres no rational way to resolve any arguments - it's all opinions.
I could see how a commonly-used resource should be considered owned in-part by everyone who uses it.
Great, because that's exactly the case with everything in the universe by default.
Then, if those people want to rent out their share to a capitalist who wants to use it all, those people might offer a price similar to a land value tax.
Great, job done.
That's not a foundational property theory though, it's just one business strategy for the owners to use. The price would not be arbitrary, but based on the market exchange between the shared-owner and the capitalist. It would limit rent seeking by requiring someone to establish standing before imposing a cost to use of the land, rather than "everybody" deserving a cut.
Exactly.
I don't understand why you try to reinvent the wheel when simple exclusive property theory can provide solutions to these problems without getting Henry George's sticky fingers involved.
You need to pay the losers or there is no justice.