Today, in our "capitalist" countries, we use, interchangeably:
What if this is completely wrong? So wrong that our economy is about to collapse because of this mislabelling.
In many people's view, land ownership is the basis of capitalism. "You can't do anything else, unless you own the land. You wouldn't grow crops, if you couldn't guarantee that you had continued control of the land." And so, ownership of land is pretty much seen as the thing upon which capitalism is built upon.
Similarly, communism starts off with all the land being owned/controlled by the govern-cement. And then, all the buildings that are on the land is also owned/controlled by the govern-cement.
So, if i state that land cannot be owned, or something similar, i will run smack into capitalist AND communist hate.
But, let us try, because our future existence depends on this.
All the land is owned by the crown, the royalty, those in charge, the state.
There are only a few places on earth that are not.
It is interesting that these show who rules over govern-cement.
The bloody King of England cannot step foot in the City of London without asking permission first.
However, everywhere else has been claimed by one govern-cement or another. (except for places where the borders were not quite exact, and these places are fun to explore… on goolag earth.)
The land that you think you own, is not yours. Just stop paying your property tax, and see who owns it.
The olde way of doing things was to seek out, and find new lands, and claim it in the name of a king. No unclaimed place was left unclaimed. Everything was divvied up hundreds of years ago. And, it doesn't matter at all, about the current people who are living there, and what they need. (like the Donbas region of Ukraine. Which is almost completely Russian speaking people who consider themselves Russian. And, now there is a war, over something that should have had the border lines redrawn long ago.)
In my opinion the crown doesn't own shit. It is just the biggest, most well armed, gang. And its claim over any land, should only include what they care for on a day to day basis.
"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth"
We divvied up all the land. Meaning, those who were born first got all the land.
This is a big problem today between the boomers and other generations. Many boomers have two houses, Most of Gen Z has zero houses. And the boomers blame the younger generation for being lazy. No one thinks that the boomers bought it all up, and now there isn't any room left for the youth.
The youth, are literally expected to go out, and with their limited job experience, outbid all the people who came before them, for a place to sleep. Does this sound like something an intelligent village/society would do? Burdening the least capable, with the greatest load, during a time when they really should be exploring who they are.
Today we have homeless camps popping up everywhere. This is very strange because all these people used to be in a house. Where did the house go?
Well, we are seeing it start, the rioting and the burning down of cities. People who aren't allowed a place to live in the city will burn it down.
We interchange the words so often, that most people believe they mean the same thing.
And, in many capitalist works, land is the first property, from which all other property emerges.
Of course we can see that a farmer needs to have some assurity that they will still control the land when it comes time to harvest. Else, they wouldn't plant the crops in the first place. However, this does not need to be done in way that the farmer "owns" the land and can do what they want to it, and sell it.
In the future, the person/group who "owns" the land is those who are currently care taking it. Further, the land in between "holdings" will be "unowned" lands. When there is land available for new humans, then they can go find their place, and start care-taking that land.
We should be able to do that now, if we look at America, so much of it is just empty space. There are forests in New England that no one has stepped foot in, in years. Why can't a person just go out there and build themselves a cabin? Well, if you do, the authorities will come and kick you out and destroy all your work. Sounds more like overlords making sure that people do not escape the plantation.
In the future land will not be considered property, and "ownership" will not be transferred via money. Rich people will not be allowed to "buy" a huge tract of land, which they never set foot upon, but claim as their own.
In other words, land and property will no longer be synonymous.
Govern-cements will realize that they cannot withhold land from the people. Or, the people rise up and show the govern-cement that they have no power, nor control over the land.
The term "Real Estate" will stop being used. And "property" will not be used to refer to land. And govern-cements will be allowed no control over the land.
Which really changes everything.
Imagine a "country" that has no real borders, that it is just what the groups of people living in an area call themselves. The the state/govern-cement is no longer defined by a border. That it just helps people in its area. Yes, the future "government" will just be an organization that helps groups/communities come to better win-win agreements, and come help, when asked, on things that the communities do not have enough expertise in.
Things will really be different in the future. So different that the meanings of words change, radically change, or the old words, with the old connotations, just cease to be used.
