Well, that's pretty much the argument the Indians have made about Manhattan. It is reasonable to say "no more." It is not reasonable to try to go back and return all land to its original owners. (1) They may not want it back, or (2) they may have been willing to sell at the time, but would now want the more valuable land returned to them.
Philosophically, I understand the point, but practically, it would be impossible. If people are waiting for that to happen, they will never be happy because it is logistically impossible.
Indians? Manhattan? What argument?
Last I checked, the whole "Manhattan Island for 24 dollars" yuck-it-up at the expense of the Indians was actually a double-edged sword. True, for the Dutch as with any European of that day who was similarly raised on the concept of personal property and ownership, this was a steal.
But to Indian culture back then which had no similar concept of ownership of land, vieing instead that they were part of the land and at most, stewards of the common earth, the idea that the White Man would give them trinkets for something that everyone "plainly and obviously" would continue using was just as laughable.
Well, they say that it is the winners who write the history books - guess that applies to common lore as well, eh?