this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
569 points (94.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43950 readers
596 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm very interested in this idea. How would that work for things that are "part" of the land, like natural resources, or even the topsoil? Would the land be "owned" by the government (I think this might already technically be the case)? Does that mean anybody could just build something in "my" back yard?
Natural resources it the prime example. I think all natural resources should exclusively be under democratic control and all profits from the sale of naturals resources goes exclusively to the government. Developed land like private housing gets complicated fast but ideally things should work like things work now but the government fulfills the functions of a landlord.