>>241That made me think for a moment, but there isn't really a problem on that front; those things fit the definition of rivalrousness as well. Land use is excludable.
For instance, if I plant corn on every square foot of a piece of land, that excludes others from doing the same.
If I fill a building with machinery designed to manufacture a particular good, that will restrict others from doing other things with that building. Further, each piece of machinery can only be used by a limited number of people at a time. Keep in mind that a factory is just a building that has been purposed for manufacturing. The owner of the property involved has the right to exclude people from his factory for whatever reason.
So there's no problem with considering land and factories to be rivalrous.
So we need a way of resolving who has the right to decide how a piece of land is used. One person can easily find ways to use a piece of land such that it excludes everyone else, including farming, constructing factories, or just living alone on a few acres. The decision of who gets to use those farms, factories, and homes falls to the owners.
Where I would challenge his argument is on the requirement of goods being material. Under this definition, it would seem that bitcoins, bank accounts, and other ledger balances are not property.