How Did John Locke Use Private Property

On a similar note regarding problems of reasoning and or the interpretation in modern era, Locke stipulates in paragraph 31 that the right to appropriate and use things of the earth does not include a right to spoil or destroy or let things go to waste. (2ndtreatise). However, there are problems in the reasoning and or there is lack of an explanation as to how far the no-waste condition goes, what if person A is utilizing the land but person B could utilize the land more productively, is person A arguably wasting the property? One could then push the no-waste idea regarding private property to that of whoever uses property in the most productive way; which seems to create a problem with Locke’s original main argument for private property which has three layers of reasoning relating to labour, the first being if one mixes what they own with something no one owns that person comes to own the unowned thing, the second being everyone owns their own labour and have “ownership of the fruits of their labour”,

For instance, ‘if one mixes what they own with something no one owns that person comes to own the unowned thing’(2ndtreatise); in practise this does not work if a person were to truly mix their labour with something they did not own it would generally not expand their ownership to include what they did not own before. There can also be questions posed concerning what determines the extent of what an individual can come to own with mixing their labour. If it comes to one’s intentions, that influences more entrenched inequality because someone with grand intentions will do little of their own labour but come to own a massive amount of property which does not seem fair nor does it seem to comply with Locke’s arguments with individual natural unalienable