So I think there is really something to this idea, Alex. As you probably know, the locus classicus of the very idea of the right to have and hold one's property is John Locke's Two Treatises of Government. In the second treatise he theorizes that the right to property comes from our mixing our labor (work) with unowned or "commonly held" materials. After the property is acquired, the right is maintained through legitimate means of property transfer. In your talk you focus partly on what was an illegitimate interpretation by Europeans of what could, with moral legitimacy, be considered to be held in common. But what I intend to point to here is Locke's association between the property right and work/production. Once this (acquisition) part is done, the terms of legitimate transfer are entirely conventional. Presumably, we do not regard inheritance as work. The terms of legitimate transfer in the context of inheritance, even in Locke's system, must be determined on separate moral grounds. I think this makes room even within classical property right theory for an argument like yours.