The government owns all the land and gives you a more-or-less yearly subscription to keep your land at a reasonable cost. If you are a landlord then you're just a middle-man who can profit.

Hmm. So in your view landlords are zamindars, there to extract value from the land and to give a little bit of it to their overlord?

I presume in your view, it would be best if governments cut the middle man and seized all land, but alas, they are too incompetent to extract any value from it. So like the EIC of old, they must rely on landlords.

That is an interesting view of private property. It certainly explains a lot about about modern rental problems.

If you want to have a government at all, you must finance it somehow. Usage fees can go a long way, but you most likely also need some general taxation. Taxing land value is the least bad thing to tax, because the supply of land is fixed.

Yes, you can see this alternatively as the government renting out the land. And that's a fine view. Landlords pass on the land, but also put buildings on top. What you pay monthly for your apartment is partially for the land (which would go to the government, indirectly) and partially for the building and amenities and maintenance.

Most leftists see landlords as people who unjustly make money without doing any work by taking money from their renters who do work. It's fairly common for leftists to describe them as parasites.

What they think should be done about that depends on exactly what type of leftist they are. However, most do not think that the land should be seized by the government. Many are fine with private ownership but feel that systems (such as the land value tax in this discussion) should be put into place to help ensure that the land's value is shared by society. On the other hand, anarchists might feel that land should be owned collectively by those living on it and managed by them democratically.

I think that most leftists would agree with you; realizing that landlords didn't actually do any labor to earn the money that they receive opens ones eyes to a lot of the problems in our current system of housing.

Thats one perspective.

Another is that the government is simply a service provider which you pay a yearly subscription to.

If the government owns all the land then the rentiers will get out of the real estate business and into politics.

... implying that they aren't already? At-least speaking US, there are plenty of real-estate focused PACs.

That's certaintly not the view of the current legal system.

Where I live the government is by, of, and for the people.

Thats what I learned growing up, but it seems like time have changed and reversed it.

Now people live by, for, and at the discretion of the government.

There is no personal property, only what the government allows you temporarily posses.

For what it's worth, I see it somewhat differently:

People now live by, for and at the discretion of the corporations. The government is just a tool that the rich use to exert their will upon the people.

I would say the two sentiments are connected.

If the role of the individual is to serve the needs of the government, it is easy to corporations to control the whims and goals of the government. The individual doesnt have to understand whys and wants of the government, just serve it.

However, if the roles are reversed and the purpose of the government is to serve the individual, than each person can judge if their personal interests are being served.

That is to say, I think the idea of people as a servant of the government is instrumental in corporate capture of the institution. The idea of serving a greater good, without voluntary consent, is just an exploit opportunity for capture by corporations or others.

When people view the government as their servant, they just say no, I dont want that policy.

Ostensibly.

In theory a government that serves the people who elected it.

In practice does anyone buy that? I'm not a "government bad" person, I think it's necessary, if messy. I also think the problem with our government isn't that it has access to a lack of money.

Imagine this system was in place in 2000, you watch as trillions are flushed into a pair of 20 year wars. You watch as lax oversight leads to the crash in 2008. And you ask yourself if the piddling sums extracted from your property were well spent, and conclude that it probably wasn't.

If these taxes went into a single payer healthcare system, I'd be a lot more interested, but as just another step in gifting insurance companies another trillion... eh.