Should the concept of "owning land" be abolished?

Question

After all, land is a finite resource. We do not have the ability to create more of it like we do with cars, TVs, computers, clothes, food, etc. What if someone (like Bill Gates) were to buy all land that freeways were on and charged everyone to use it? What if on my street, my neighbor bought the land that the connecting road sits on and charges the rest of us to use it?

Answer 1

wow .. if that isn't a socialist concept I don't know what is. And, though I am in partial agreement, our society is capitalist. Therefore every resource has it's price and ownership. It isn't likey that viewpoint will change.

Answer 2

Bill gates doesn't have that kind of money first of all and the govt has the right to seize land from anyone with due compensation so there is no danger of some rich guy preventing freeway construction. The fact that land is finite, as is everything in this universe, is all the more reason it should be owned and traded for money, goods or services. That is the most efficient way of distributing things to the most high valued user. Thousands of years of human civilization would back me up on this. I suggest you take an Economics course to learn more about this topic. If your wondering how I knew you were still in school, its because only a teenager could have the right combination of arrogance and ignorance to make such a bold and yet silly proposal. As if your 15-18 year old brain could really out think every adult currently living or who has ever lived.

Answer 3

Several questions, The land Highways are on is owned by the Government, usually seized or bought under the notion of eminent domain. There for Bill Gates can not own that land as for the rest of the land that is publicly held. How would you propose we divided it, give it all to the government then pay rent to them?

What about places where great environmental harm was done, if no one owned it how would you hold them accountable?

If you could not own land with the rights to sell it or pass it on what incentive would there be to build and maintain the property?

The concept of land ownership is incomplete anyway, if a nation fails, the land can be resold or controlled by the new government. As we live in a capitalist society land ownership is vital to our economic structure.

Answer 4

Only if you want land to become useless as a resource.
Suggest you look up the following economic term: "Tragedy of the Commons" & read up on the Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto, author of "The Other Path," about how lack of land ownership results in poverty. And then you can refer to the collapse of the world's ocean fisheries to see what happens when no one "owns" a resource.

Answer 5

There's a couple of points you fail to realize.

Read a little about something called "Eminent Domain."

Also, there's a reason your municipality owns that land that the connecting road sits on.

A couple hundred years ago what you described in your question was a problem.

Answer 6

No. Land ownership is one of the freedoms that our forefathers fought for. It is subjected to enough jeopardy with the new "eminent domain" laws. Now, anyone who thinks that they can improve the value of your land can legally take it away from you. If your property is land locked, you should be able to sue the title company who insured the title. That's what title insurance is for and you paid for it.

Answer 7

No. There are laws and easements designed to protect access. Your solution is ridiculous.