this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
2475 points (97.8% liked)

Memes

45248 readers
2796 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] snake_cased@lemmy.ml 37 points 8 months ago (41 children)

Landownership is wrong all together.

If you think about it, it is completely absurd, why anyone assumes the right to 'own' a piece of land. Or even more land than the other guy. Someone must have been the person to first come up with the idea of ownership, but it is and was never based on anything other than an idea, and we should question it.

After all inheritance of landownership is a major cornerstone of our unjust and exploitative society.

[–] UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca 31 points 8 months ago (27 children)

Every generation, people want to try new things and it's nice. But landownership can and has been and good thing in a way that just going back to "anarchy" wouldn't work. E.g. creation of ghettos, who gets to farm the best land, etc.

So then the suggestions are that the land are owned and "managed" by the state apparatus. Now we have a few famines in history to show us how gaining favor in a political system is not the best way to manage the land.

I'm open to better suggestions but just shitting on land ownership seems easy and unproductive.

[–] Aasikki@sopuli.xyz 20 points 8 months ago (3 children)

If someone owns a house, they kinda have to own at the very least some land around it. I just don't really see any other way for that to work. Would be interesting to hear how that could work otherwise.

[–] snaprails@feddit.uk 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There's a thing called leasehold whereby you own the building and lease the land usually for 99 years after which it returns to the freeholder. It's one of the reasons that the US embassy in London moved from Mayfair to Nine Elms. It was the only US embassy in the world that the US government didn't own, the freehold belongs to the Grosvenor family (i.e. Lord Grosvenor). When the US tried to buy the freehold the Grosvenor family refused but agreed to a 999 year lease in exchange for the return of 12000 acres of Florida that was confiscated from them after the Revolutionary War - yes, they've been landowners for a very long time! I think the US made sure to buy the freehold of the new site at Nine Elms (they sold the remainder of the 999 year lease in Mayfair for an undisclosed sum) 😀

[–] Patches@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Ah okay so private land ownership but all it takes is the slightest bit of corruption to 'lease' a plot of land for free, for essentially forever. Because that's what 999 years essentially is.

We already have these systems with Water tables, and we can already see the problems.

Saudi Arabia is running the Arizona water tables dry because some shit agreed to 'lease' them unlimited water usage. They did this for the price of less than a smart phone in today's dollars.

[–] Eyelessoozeguy@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I want this to be fixed by not allowing non citizens to own american soil. It doesnt make sense to me to allow non us citizens to buy up land in america.

Like why cant the Saudis just buy hay from arizonans this transfering monies into local economies?

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

That will just make middle-man agreements.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This isn't something I know a whole lot about, because I don't believe in the abolition of private property on an individual level, but it's my understanding the crunchy types would ask:

What makes you think they have to own the land around it? There are plenty of home owners right now who don't have yards.

[–] hyperhopper@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think he means more like an arms length or enough to walk around it. Not a full on yard.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is really going to blow some suburbanite heads right off, apparently, but a lot of people live in duplexes too.

[–] Eyelessoozeguy@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Those still exist? It's been a long time since I've seen one, in the wild.

[–] lepinkainen@lemmy.world -4 points 8 months ago

You can rent the land too. It's cheaper in the short term, more expensive in the long term.

load more comments (23 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)