They don't have a monopoly control of "land", the have control of the land they own. And whether or not new land is being produced or land is unique is pretty flimsy. There's vast amounts of land around the globe under varying laws and systems of government and usage. Land use regulation is also not equivalent to regulatory capture. I don't have much time for redefining common terms as a way to argue -- if you want to abolish private ownership of land, just out and say it.

> Land is essentially monopolised through regulatory capture (council land use restrictions) and the lack of new production of land (ignoring for now the very minor exceptions of, say, Dubai, Singapore, the Netherlands). There is a lack of viable substitutes of land, and due the necessity of land for human life, the owners of land are able to extract rent far above their marginal cost.

This is just emotional handwaving. Water is vital for human life and you can't produce more of it ignoring very minor exceptions of chemical reactions. If I pour myself a glass of water I don't gain monopoly control of water.

And Ricardo's Law of Rent does not explain that land-lording is rent-seeking. Millions of people own a second house and rent it out, how are they rent-seeking?

> Note that by saying "Investing in appreciating assets of any kind is also not." I suspect that you see land as equivalent to other forms of capital,

From the point of view of an investor it's pretty equivalent to other assets. Everything is finite. Water, sand, apples, cell phones, gold.

> and thus a legitimate form of investment to be pursued without any ethical qualms. However, land is not capital, and is distinct from other forms of investment.

Everyone wanting to live in the Upper East Side of New York City but not being able afford to rent or own a place there because everyone else wants to live there does not illustrate any ethical problems with land ownership at all. No more than me owning a box of corn flakes when some people starve to death because of poverty.