General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why not outlaw landlordism? [View all]cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Land ownership is an arrangement between the land "owner", the state, and the rest of us. The sovereign, perpetual state guarantees the "owner's" claim to have exclusive control over a piece of land -- forbidding, as he chooses, all others (the rest of us) from setting foot on, or using that piece of land forevermore. The "owner" didn't create the land -- it was there before him.
All this bullshit goes back to Roman concepts of modes of "natural acquisition", such as acquisition by discovery, occupation, or by civil means. None of that makes it right. There's nothing inherently "natural" or right about it and there's nothing inherently wrong or right about other systems of land use.
At the very least, in exchange for "the rest of us" agreeing to recognize the "owner's" claim to exclusive use and control over a piece of land -- which he didn't create and which was there before him and will be there after him -- the owner might be required to compensate the public (i.e. the rest of us) on an ongoing basis.
There's nothing inherently right about denying me the right to simply walk down to the riverbank for a drink of water because some rich family somewhere claims to own all the land along the river. It wasn't right in England when "Lords" claimed to own vast areas of the countryside and it's not right now.