Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it’s actually pretty popular.
Do you have some that’s really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?
Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it’s actually pretty popular.
Do you have some that’s really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?
Nobody should be allowed to own land. You can build a building and that building is yours because you built it but you can’t make land and the only reason you own it is because someone in the past used violence to take it.
What would you propose then? That if I built a house somewhere someone else could come along and build a house right next to mine? If so, wouldn’t that simply create the incentive to build structures that used as much land as possible to keep others away?
Or are you saying that plots of land should be rented instead? If so, that’s basically already the case. Stop paying property taxes and see how long that plot of land you “own” remains yours.
So if I build a house I own the walls and ceiling, but not the ground floor?
The ground floor is usually on top of a foundation that is on top of the land, no? I guess if it was a dirt floor, you wouldn’t own it.
Would you be able to own a marble countertop in your kitchen? Who owns the quarry it came from?
Nice thing I could also just park my car on every bit of dirt.
I guess that depends on what they meant by “land”. Is marble land?
Or maybe no marble for anyone. The only materials we can use are non-land based.
Good luck even owning a car if the metal and fuel have to be taken from the land! A wooden frame bicycle would be possible, maybe? Would you be able to use rubber? Idk anything about how rubber is processed, but that also probably uses land-based stuff either as a fuel or some sort of chemical.
Lmao that’s an intentional misunderstanding. They are obviously referring to land which has been claimed by a private entity just for the sake of ‘land value’ because this leads to hoarding and unnecessary scarcity. If one develops a farm on that land, then they should be entitled to a significant share of the profits reflective of their investment of time and resources, but those who dedicate labor to working that land should also be entitled to an ownership share.
The premise is that land should not be snatched up and ‘owned’ in its entirety, especially for prospective reasons, when the ‘owner’ is not providing any value through their ‘ownership’. This is just greed institutionalized.
In reality, all land belongs to the earth and we are just a bunch of monkeys fighting eachother over fictional rights to that land in the pursuit of power and influence over other monkeys.
I’m very interested in this idea. How would that work for things that are “part” of the land, like natural resources, or even the topsoil? Would the land be “owned” by the government (I think this might already technically be the case)? Does that mean anybody could just build something in “my” back yard?
Natural resources it the prime example. I think all natural resources should exclusively be under democratic control and all profits from the sale of naturals resources goes exclusively to the government. Developed land like private housing gets complicated fast but ideally things should work like things work now but the government fulfills the functions of a landlord.