News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Half of England Is Owned by Less Than 1% of Its Populatio... by subjectHarold on Saturday April 20, 2019 @10:38PM (#19710252)
Okay, that isn't the point...but that is what you said: "why should the family whose main claim to fame is aggressive use of force"...how else is this supposed to be interpreted? Because of someone's ancestors, this group shouldn't own property. If you want to make a different point, then make it.

And it isn't random. You can acquire this property if you want. But be aware, you seem to be expecting to acquire the "entire society's wealth"...most of this land isn't that valuable and that land that is requires work (which is why it is valuable).

Again, I don't understand what your point is here beyond anger that someone else has something you want?

EDIT: Are you actually familiar with the population distribution and density in Scotland? A good chunk of this land is just agriculture and rough grass that has few economic uses. This isn't land that anyone wants to live on. The main concern of the govt, as I understand it, is to encourage forestry (which will mean more large owners, not less).

Re:Half of England Is Owned by Less Than 1% of Its Populatio... by jacobolus on Saturday April 20, 2019 @10:53PM (#19710283)
In the western US, most land is owned by the federal government, which on the whole does a pretty decent job of forest management.

Why should large landholdings beyond individuals’ management abilities be left to particular families?

Re:Half of England Is Owned by Less Than 1% of Its Populatio... by petre on Sunday April 21, 2019 @01:00AM (#19710613)
Maybe that's why English settlers went to the US in the first place. The UK did not have a French style revolution.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/land-reform/Types-of-reform