> This is an interesting way to frame something I've seen stated as "if you don't own the land you don't get to decide what to do with it".
How about “if you cannot afford to defend the land, you do not get to decide what to do with it”?
Who is paying for all the police/military/courts/legal system keeping that highly desirable land secure from “outsiders”?
Land owners in the US have an enormous subsidy from non land owners simply by being able to secure their asset without commensurate payment for security, and doubly so in California with their prop 13 property tax increase cap.
How about “if you cannot afford to defend the land, you do not get to decide what to do with it”?
Who is paying for all the police/military/courts/legal system keeping that highly desirable land secure from “outsiders”?
Land owners in the US have an enormous subsidy from non land owners simply by being able to secure their asset without commensurate payment for security, and doubly so in California with their prop 13 property tax increase cap.