There's a huge difference between possessions and property, just as there's a difference between tangible property and entitlements.
Once upon a time, the "free man" dream was to own the land he worked - so he could fairly benefit from the products of his own labors.
Let's remember Locke's Labor Theory of Property ...
P1: God gave the world to people in common "to make use of it to the best advantages of life, and convenience"
P2: Every person has a property in his own person (the labor of his body, and the work of his hands are properly his)
P3: When someone mixes his labor with a part of the common property in order
to produce something, he comes to own it provided:
(1) there is enough and as good left in common for others
(2) it is not wasted or allowed to spoil
(3) (as regards land) it is improved
C1: Thus, it is the private property of the one who produced it
C2: Therefore, people have limited natural rights to property
P4: Whatever we own we may freely trade with others for what they own
P5: In particular, we may trade perishable goods for money
P6: Since money does not perish, we cannot waste it
P7: Money can be hoarded without hurting anyone
C3: Therefore, the right of property in money is unlimited
Thus, the questions of "how much?" and "what kind?" have become very relevant today. The limitations of one's natural rights to property have as much, or more, to do with what's left in common for others as with what we mean by 'waste,' 'spoil,' and 'improved.'
When the system of justice (and we're talking about economic justice, not criminal justice) no longer affords 'ownership' to those who labor, instead treating labor as a
perishable good, we accelerate the distillation of ownership of tangible property into the hands of fewer and fewer.
This is the very essence of economic tyranny.
Locke's provisos that property not be wasted and excesse (beyond one's own needs) be left in common can be aptly translated into "Don't waste or hoard!"
Both are now being violated systemically. Under Locke's theory, then, the violation of those precepts along with 'ownership' accruing not to the one who labors but to the one who benefits from enforced entitlements, calls into serious question our system of entitlements.
The moral aim of governance is
justice, without which governance is fundamentally immoral and unsustainable. It is solely through the mechanisms of governance that
entitlements are formed. (Note the core word 'title' - like "Duke," "Baron," or a Title to a Real Estate.)
When the (economic) system of entitlements does not serve Justice, the system is corrupt. (Justice, in this sense, is the degree to which 'entitlements' honor 'rights.')