If 1 person owns 1,000 units and 5 people own 1-2 units then most people own 1-2 units.

Much like farm size the meaningful number is the reverse. What percentage of units are owned by someone with 1-2 units vs 100’s.

"Rent" is an economic term, meaning roughly "income derived from mere ownership of an asset" such as land, but also including things like other monopolies.

I disagree with this framing.

Farming is merely "income derived from ownership of an asset". Web servers, auto rentals, text books, and skii/beach resorts are too.

No it isn't. It is labour. In fact it actually an example of something where the distinction between labour and rent is crystal-clear.

If you're a landlord and you outsource the working of the land to a peasant tenant farmer (as was the norm in many places for thousands of years), your cut is 100% rent, as it is only derived from your (violence-enforced) exclusive ownership rights to the land.

"No it isn't. It is labour."

Is it? Farming is (historically) an optimized form of gathering that's transformed alongside crop consolidation and other efficiency gains.

Without land, farming cannot occur. Without laborers or equipment, farming can occur, but in a less efficient form.

Also, all monetizable "things" represent assets because they hold/produce value.

Without land, farming cannot occur.

Duh. But that's not what you're saying, you're saying "without privatised land, farming cannot occur", which is a trivially false assertion.

>Also, all monetizable "things" represent assets because they hold/produce value.

Yes, that is indeed the definition of asset: an ownable and tradable "thing". I fail to see the point.

"But that's not what you're saying, you're saying "without privatised land, farming cannot occur", which is a trivially false assertion."

The world's land is privatized. What ought to be has no relevance.

Farming is asset-driven for that reason.

I'm not debating what could be; only what is.