Ok, so I was thinking about this, you may have seen the memes about mutualism (orange and black ball) where a person leaves their house and land to go to the store and since they have abandoned it for a few minutes, a "mutualist" can then go in to claim the property and house because it is not being "actively used". (Above link is an example)
If not, I think some mutualist (anarchists) believe that property only has validity so long as it is being used. Their concern is especially for someone who originally puts up a big fence on unclaimed land and then does nothing with it, while there are people nearby who want to make use of it and would do good with the land.
Capitalists and like ancaps in response argue this is a slippery slope to people just taking other people's property, like the aforementioned meme parody.
So I thought, what if as a compromise, that maybe the mutualists are correct that property has validity morally upon being used, but that it's not a good idea to recognize that process legally speaking.
In other words, unless you're making use of property, isn't it "superfluous wealth" that perhaps ought to be loaned or given to someone in need (in accordance with Christian thought)? There's no hard rule here on how much time is too much to not make use of such stuff, but I was wondering if you think it a useful principle or not.
So, not that the legal institutions or government should permit people to repossess such unused property, but perhaps one ought to think it more moral to voluntarily make use of such property actively or to give it away if they're not going to use it?
Overall, what do you think of the mutualist theory of property having legitimacy only when it is made use of?