[vinceguidry]

One can compare and contrast this dynamic with actual land and real estate. In the beginning land was cheap, concepts of ownership over it made no sense. Then tribes grew into civilizations which could hold on to the best lands, and drove out or assimilated other tribes. The concept of individual ownership still didn't make any sense, and even when it did, only kings partook on behalf of their kingdoms.

Slowly, slowly, the concept of total control by individuals evolved. Royal / imperial control devolved to feudal systems which eventually devolved to mercantilist systems, where our ideas of own vs. rent finally started to take shape.

Even there land was a huge investment and tended to be a family shared good, if you were lucky enough to have any at all. Everybody else rented. Slowly the economic position of individuals and the financial system itself, particularly in Anglo nations, improved to the point where individuals could, under their own economic steam, acquire real estate and use it to derive income, something that used to require massive investment on the part of an entire society.

The concept of ownership over a thing has always relied on the ability of whoever has ownership over it to derive income from it, to further the cause of industry, and therefore society. It makes no sense for individuals to have to buy up the publication and distribution rights for something like a movie, as they have no way of utilizing those rights. It makes no sense for AirBnB to actually own real estate.

It's ownership itself that is the anomaly, not the lack of it. The number of things it makes sense for an individual to own, soup to nuts, is always going to be a very small list. I foresee the era of invincible owner-chairmen to be a short one, to be replaced by an era where smaller businesses that can be fully operated by small teams to grow, where those businesses eventually cede control to larger collectives.

[elliekelly]

There's a major difference between the "no one owns anything" concept from earlier civilizations and "a few people own everything" concept from feudal/imperial times. In one the things are held in a sort of "public trust" like a park or our highway system. In the other, the many are exploited into working to death so that the few property "owners" can derive (often excessive) "income" from "their" property.

The renting economy you describe brings us closer to the latter and that concept of ownership only works for the wealthy, who ironically end up not having to do any of the actual work.

[solidsnack9000]

In the present day, most land is held fee simple -- we have many rights, including the right to transfer the land and have our name taken off it; but we must still acknowledge the superior ownership of the government, which can take land by eminent domain, impose taxes, and enter the land with its police forces.

This is in contrast to allodial title, land held in an absolute sense, on which no taxes can be imposed by any authority. This is close to the sense in which nations hold land today, relative to one another. Allodial title is now a rarity.

Present day landholding is thus a situation where "many people own many things" and "one entity owns everything". It might be said that the government owns a certain minimal slice of rights of all land; but sells the the rest of the rights.

Maybe the same ideas apply for "stuff".