Housing and land are not "tough". There's plenty of dirt cheap land even in highly developed countries; it just happens to be outside the most popular locations. But if we want housing to become both cheap and livable we must invest in those "unpopular" places, even as we also try to build more housing in the more high-demand locations. There's just no avoiding that.
Land by itself is not useful -- if you can't make a living what's the point of having land? Land is most useful when it's in proximity to opportunity, and opportunity-adjacent land is scarce and only getting scarcer.
Can you buy a small parcel of land, dig a well for water and a hole under the outhouse, plant veggies, have some chickens, pigs, perhaps a goat.
Can you do it in range of a cell tower for internet, do you need some satellite solution. How much solar and how big a battery do you really _need_. How would today's tech change the life of the settlers?
I did some web searches for here in Australia, and I didn't parcels of land much less than 10k, and they looked liked barren desert to me. More like 100k if you want nice looking forest in the middle of nowhere.
Maybe a specific young person with a lot of relevant experience and strong desire for this sort of life could, but it would be pretty hard and the initial costs are nothing to sniff at.
Water is especially prohibitive. The American West is going through massive aridification and the water table is overdepleted in many places. Gotta watch out for water rights too.
Electricity and internet are doable if you can afford the right systems.
Food is really hard unless you're willing to buy everything at dollar general. Modern farming is highly reliant on artificial sources of nitrogen. And it's just not a good use of your time if you have a tech job. Social needs of humans cannot be overlooked.
People even a couple hundred years ago would move whole communities. They had access to abundant natural resources and divided responsibilities differently.
Maybe you're just interested in van life but + farming? It's expensive and probably a bad investment overall, but makes more sense than owning random cheap but poorly situated land outright.
Zero sum is not a binary. For things where we are able to increase output using technological progress to the point where supply sufficiently meets demand, sure, it doesn't feel zero sum. Nobody is arguing that we need to fix that -- the challenge is actually preserving the situation in these cases (it's bad to kill the reward signals that make the economic engine go).
For things where we cannot rapidly increase output, things that have unlimited demand but very limited supply, the rich are likely to monopolize. In those cases, it is zero sum. Public spaces (think of the beach access controversies with people like Vinod Khosla), farmland, housing, fresh water, college admissions. Housing and land in particular are really tough.
Strategies like wealth redistribution (but _also_ other related policies!!) are needed to mitigate the latter.
Wealth centralization is also anathema to democracy -- just ask proof of stake folks. When the wealthy get to make all the laws, you won't want to live in that society.