So your opposition boils down to two points:

1. Ben can't own the river
2. "People" would punish Ben economically because they're pissed at him

In an effort to distill my thoughts, let me give you my quick rebuttal:

1. Why can't Ben own the river? Who decides this? If he doesn't own the river, who does? Your decision that land can be owned but a river can't is arbitrary.
2. "People" isn't an agent. "People" is a collection of uncoordinated individuals. If 100 people don't want to buy Ben's logs, then one person will come along and buy them at a discount - but it's not a foregone conclusion that he'll be driven out of business simply because people are annoyed with him.