[causality0]

I mean, sure. At the end of the day all land owners, and I speak as one, exist at the end of a chain that began with theft and likely violence. The surface of the earth is by nature no less a resource that should be common to all man as the atmosphere and the oceans. Neither the landlord with more than he can live on nor the renter with not enough to live on can exist without someone at some point having taken more than their fair share by guile or force of arms.

[TulliusCicero]

Owning as the only housing model doesn’t make sense. There’s plenty of reasons someone might prefer to rent instead, most of them having to do with not being in a position to put down roots. Which necessitates some kind of landlord.

[nitrogen]

Owning shares that could be transferred from house to house would make a lot more sense than renting.

[enord]

Money. The shares you are talking about already exist, and they're called "money". Of course, the relative value of shares wrt. the house will fluctuate over time and you'd have to account for this when transferring between houses, except this is calculated for you by the market when you just use money.

[TulliusCicero]

That sounds like it would be hideously complicated in practice.

Renting works fine if you have some basic regulations (which admittedly is the opposite of the case in the US).

[refurb]

I don’t believe sin is inheritable and I didn’t steal land from anyone, I was just born into a system that I’m doing my best to take part in.

[causality0]

The sin isn't heritable but land, like artifacts in the British Museum, doesn't stop being stolen because we've had it a long time or traded it amongst ourselves. I'm not advocating anything radical; I'm just saying it's reasonable to be a little uncomfortable about it sometimes.

[refurb]

That’s entirely a judgement call. I wouldn’t assume everyone feels that way.

The people my ancestors stole the land from, stole it from another indigenous tribe. Go back far enough and everyone is living on stolen land.