Locke specifically cautioned that ownership in land could only be justified so long as there was "enough, and as good, left in common for others". Clearly, this is no longer the case today; indeed, the monetary value of that monopoly right precisely shows the extent to which the use of land has become scarce.

An artificial scarcity created by the fact the government controls most of the land...

We should be demanding the government cede control of the land, instead of pleading for the government to give us a smidgen of what it does not rightfully possess!

And private investors wouldn't immediately buy up as much land as possible as they did with single family homes during the housing crisis?

Everyone needs a place to live and land is a finite resource. Plus, foreign investors love to use real estate to park money. Government doesn't seem to be the problem here. People will pay what they have to to avoid being homeless. At the same time, developers will build what's most profitable: luxury housing. The market won't fix the problem, so we the people, by way of government, should.

Well, don't let foreign investors buy up all our land. Government should cede control of the land, and let its citizens stake out plots.

And then we've just kicked the can down to the road a generation or so. Whatever problems you think more privately owned land will solve today, will just be waiting for us tomorrow.

None of what you've described is a problem absent government micromanagement of what can and can't be done on said land (strict zoning, examples include SV). The government has stepped in in many markets and halted that "race to the bottom" that everyone seems to hate and $500/mo 2br apartments vanish with it.

Can you point to a developed country where the government doesn't micromanage land and housing is affordable and plentiful as a result? I can't think of any modern or historical examples. How does less zoning lead to affordable housing? What's the mechanism?

Japan? [0] Most construction is by-right, and housing is some of the cheapest in a developed nation. There are zones, but only 12 nationwide, and each only specifies a maximum use - this means if a location is zoned for industrial or dense commercial, you can still build apartments there. (Generally. It's not quite that simple, but still fits on a single poster [1] - you can't build stores, restaurants or schools in industrial for example)

0: https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.htm...

1: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sV5ETXDs_8M/Ux-axBTuF2I/AAAAAAAAA...

I guess most non developed countries? People just walk into the wilderness and plop down a free (money wise, not labor wise) house.

That is a highly artificial concept that only applies to the US given that there was vast amounts of land and relatively few people. But even in the US the assumption was highly flawed as it basically ignored the existence of native people.

Their land was just to be taken by violence. Hence without government created privilege all your are left with is a dog-eat dog world where the strongest through violence will take land for himself.

European settlers would respect each others claim of land mostly, but it basically meant it was in principle no different from an invading force stealing land.

Native Americans of course did not own land in the Lockean way. They held the land in common. The natural arrangement was in many ways closer to a communist/socialist ideal.

the state still has to protect it. without a state someone else could violently take the land away with impunity

That's why these rights should be leased over time. The rent from these leases can then pay for national defense, a courts system (formal rights to real-estate are quite important if you want people to physically invest in it) and many other things. If you just give them away, you're left with no money to pay for these things.