[WhoBeI]

Both options seem radical. Either penalize success or forcefully take things from people their families have, possibly, owned for generations.

If you compensate the owners of the land and take your time building the government institutions that will manage it the second option seems possible. Maybe something like what Scotland did in the 90's (I think it was) when they abolished the last parts of the feudal system.

I don't see how that would be possible in the US though. US politicians are typically funded by corporations and corporations own land. Besides, from what I understand, the right to own their own land is very important to quite a few Americans.

Put differently: I'm pretty sure an adult American in the 80's would scream "communism" at your ideas. Some of those work as politicians today. :-)

[Frost1x]

Land (and property) ownership is quite important here because many of our other rights stem from land ownership.

For example, if I'm on land I don't own, I have no real right to freedom of speech because I have no right to be on the land to begin with since it's privately held. I'm there legally by permission of the property owner only and can be removed.

This becomes increasingly problematic the more private entities take ownership of land. Imagine a world where a few hundred people own nearly all the non-government owned property and the vast majority of citizens have to rent/lease or utilized shared property.

Those private entities begin to dictate if I can take pictures, say certain things, bring a weapon on that property, etc. If the entire industry decides "we only allow Comcast Internet service on our grounds to drill into walls," then unless new laws or enacted at a state/city level forcing landlords to allow it or the FTC steps in, I guess you're using Comcast or doing without.

In theory, conventional wisdom argues competitors will enter the market with less restrictions. In practice, it's all profit driven and the most efficient market solutions get adopted resulting in shared policies across the industry. If business across an industry in general finds it's more profitable that people can't have weapons on their properties and you have no land ownership, then you can own a gun but you'll have no where to put it. Or you may want to spread an idea through speech but no one will allow it. You're then restricted to either government properties where you do have those rights or another private entity that allows it.

Property ownership is very complex here.

[lisper]

> I'm there legally by permission of the property owner only and can be removed.

Not if you have a lease.

[Frost1x]

If you don't have a lease you can be. About every private property I step foot on I don't have a lease to, so many freedoms tied to property are null there.

If you do have a lease at a given location and it specifies an enforceable restriction that is otherwise legal under federal and state law, they can certainly evict you or often fine you as a breach of contract. This could be for a variety of things related to restrictions of freedom of speech, gun ownership, to owning a cat.

If you can't afford private property, rent, and want to say, grill a burger, good luck finding a lease that permits that. You now live with a subset of legal rights determined by private property owners. Obviously there are things that aren't tied to property... they can't detain you or harm you but they can have the police detain you.

[lisper]

> penalize success

You call it "penalizing success." I call it the principle that successful people have a civic duty to contribute more to the common good.

> owned for generations

You say that as if it's axiomatically a good thing for something to be owned for generations. This is far from clear. Why should one person be entitled to own something that another is not just because of who their parents were?