[algoatecorn]

I'm not supporting the parasitic nature of landlords.

But the right to own land is an essential part of a functioning society. The idea that no one should be able to own land is ridiculous and does not work. There are plenty of examples of this all across the globe.

[oldtownroad]

What’s that statement based on? Ownership doesn’t exist in nature, it’s a concept humans have invented and enforce through cultural and legal means. Ownership is just one method of providing occupation, but occupation can be achieved through other means: for example, guaranteed leases for a fixed period. There’s various countries that have models beyond just simple private ownership. Even in countries like the US where land ownership is considered sacrosanct, the government will still take it away if you don’t pay taxes — it’s not ownership in the truest sense.

[pandaman]

>Ownership doesn’t exist in nature

What do you call the territorial animals then? A tiger will chase other tigers from the area it considers its own. Same as wolves and many other species. It's not exactly property in the sense that it cannot be traded but it is indeed the ownership. Without property rights humans would have had the same: the strong chase the weak off their land or force them to pay for being on the land.

[speeder]

Even other animals have the concept of land ownership. They might not use our words, but see what happen when you take resources from the territory of a bear or other territorial animal.

Even trees do that. Eucalyptus literally poisons land near it to kill competition.

[danans]

> Ownership is just one method of providing occupation, but occupation can be achieved through other means: for example, guaranteed leases for a fixed period

In practice, with housing, such leases are effectively ownership. The terms on these are often 100 years or more, and when they come to term, since there are often significant improvements built in the land, the terms can't be renegotiated since the lessor can't force the sale or relocation of the improvements.

[nunez]

If no one individual or company can own land, then, by definition, the governing body that created the rule owns the land.

Since governments are in the business of governing, not real estate, they'll almost definitely outsource that work (or big parts of it) to private contractors like they do for defense.

The end result is that your landlord is now an even bigger private entity (that might be a conglomerate of smaller entities, which might or might not look like the institutional landlords that exist today) with the near-infinite financial backing of the government and the insanely slow processes that come with that (such as having to go through an intermediate to get that Tesla Powerwall you want to install approved, only to be told that Tesla isn't an approved supplier and that you should use this battery from $VENDOR_THAT_WE_DONT_HAVE_RELATIONSHIPS_WITH_WE_PROMISE).

[mouzogu]

> essential part of a functioning society

so for most of recorded human history society did not function?

the only reason we're allowed to buy land is because it was commodified during the industrial revolution as the process of capital extraction from labor had moved from the land to the factories.

[coffeebeqn]

There is always Singapore. The US has almost nothing in common with it though

[usrusr]

Land ownership is an important element of long term sustainability, as in farmers carrying for their soil in order to keep it viable for their descendants.

But land ownership as in subletting and sub-subletting and sub-sub who knows how many levels up, that is not a necessary consequence of the concept of land ownership. What if only personal use was allowed? Sure, you would definitely see hoarding and countermeasures would not be without their own problems, but there is definitely room between unbounded capitalism and "property does not exist" level socialism.