Arbitrary titles granted to someone that allows them to control a piece of the Earth in perpetuity? That doesn't strike you as a recipe for disaster and inequality?
For a full answer, try: "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George.
I feel we're mixing too things now. There's control of land, and there's ownership of land. Control of land is mainly obtained by conquest and occupation, that's to say physical dominance. Titles are usually obtained by persons that attained this dominance, so that's hardly arbitrary (nor very perpetual though that may often seem so). This is nature.
Ownership is the fun stuff where you pay money/goods to the previous owner (who might very well be (a descendant of) an oppressor). In exchange for rights of exploitation (i.e. living on it).
It's not the titles that make real estate unfair, it's nature itself. That's why an egalitarian society can not be like nature but must instead be governed by rules and regulations. This is why democratic socialism is superior to libertarian capitalism (at least when we're talking equality and 'fairness').
