[CalRobert]

"Owning the land is an important piece of wealth transfer from generation to generation"

It's worth questioning whether this is a desirable goal. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but I don't think it would be universally accepted. At the risk of being grim, I stand to inherit a gorgeous home near Monterey purchased by my grandparents in the 1950's that I could never, ever afford now - and with prop 13 I could continue to afford it.

But is that good? I wouldn't even live there full time. Maybe someone else could make better use of that land, but the current tax system enables me to keep it as a luxury when someone else might want it as a necessity (a home).

Eventually, of course, it will go to someone else, as a logical consequence of not being a chain of only children, so there is that.

It's also worth considering that "owning" land is a little bit strange in the sense that if it's in a location that can support life reasonably comfortably (fresh water, decent soil) and isn't inhabited by aboriginal people, the paper trail goes back to "someone just took it from the inhabitants" which puts modern claims on shaky grounds.

Though all of this is kind of secondary to the fact that we made it damn near illegal to build new homes near good jobs.

[imtringued]

>which puts modern claims on shaky grounds.

Do those aboriginal people have an army that can reconquer the land? If not, then the shaky grounds aren't that shaky. We still live in an environment where the rule "might makes right" still applies. Don't forget that.

[snidane]

> We still live in an environment where the rule "might makes right" still applies

Which is correct. You have to draw the line somewhere when one civilization replaces another.

What is not ok when this rule applies within a civilization - you get a class struggle when one faction uses their (political) might to acquire land with an advantage.

As the parent says - land ownership as a concept is shaky and its infinite transfer over generations even more so because you tend to accumulate errors of unethically acquired land with time.

What actually is fair is a continual payment for land use to the community through government for the fact that they guarantee you, but nobody else, to use the land.

On Netflix you pay monthly fee for the service. Our land system is akin to purchasing an expensive perpetual Netflix license with infinite amount of transfers to your descendants through inheritance. What if you knew somebody inside Netflix and they give you this cool package somehow for very cheap?

This is the situation with our land systems - they are separating social classes by design - with long time convergence to aristocratic and serf classes.