Private ownership of land and natural resources is an aspect of the institution of private property and private ownership of the means of production that has been condemned by economists who in other respects were supporters of capitalism, most notably Henry George.
Their case against private ownership of land and natural resources rests on the theory of land "rent" developed by David Ricardo. Ricardo concluded both that the natural or equilibrium level of wages is subsistence, and that rent tends to constitute a larger and larger proportion of the total income of a country, as the country grows in wealth and population.
But, actually, private ownership of land is an essential foundation of economic progress, and the more it is respected, the more rapid is economic progress. Thus, it is precisely private ownership of land that prevents land rent from constituting an ever growing share of income. For private ownership of land operates to increase the productivity of land and thus reduce its scarcity value and rent.
Private ownership of land provides the means and motive for making each piece of land more productive and for bringing into production every piece that is better than what is presently in use. It is thus the most powerful force operating in favor of abundance and against any growing scarcity of the better grades of land. Thus, it works to reduce land rent and its economic significance.
Look around any large city. You will see privately owned land sitting idle, or significantly under developed. Why hasn’t private ownership provided the “means and motive for making each piece of land more productive”?
Scarcity is the steady and natural state of this world. Shortages are caused by government action. Fundamental to the idea of private property is true ownership which includes self-determined use. That is becoming a rare bird even in the countryside far away from urban socialists.