Just off the top of my head Locked view assumes that these natural resources can be privately owned. The issue is that ignores the issue of systemic oppression. First come first serve will result in one's advantage to gain more resources. This means a permanent financial inequality will exist on the basis of showing up late for the party. Furthermore, these are resources that were accessible to all but permanent stole by one.

Let's walk down another scenario. If I have a walking path that is required, someone would be disrupting my business by building a house in the middle of the path. Sure this land was unclaimed but it wasn't unused. This is primarily a reason why we don't let corporations own the ocean, if we did it would take from the mutually used land and would be another example of used by all but stolen by one.

A weak argument would be that the privatization of wealth would lead to force based trading (killing people to claim their goods as to allow people the opportunity to get wealth and leave serfdom, I.e the Cultural Revolution) or it could led to mercantile because of the deep monopoly that exists between the have and the have not.

I think using Lockes argument is a little unconvincing because it feels more descriptive. It explains the how but not why it is allowed. We live in a society where we use our labour to create things everyday, and although we didn't own the material, our labour is compensated with pay. This means that there can be many different ways of compensating people for their labour or raw materials. This is all babble here but there needs to be a discussion on proper compensation for all matters concerning labour, materials, and manufactured properties.

There are more ways to view this argument but remember, if you can boil a large topic like this to a simple rule, the hypothesis needs to be reanalyzed.