this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2025

39 points (95.3% liked)

Canada

10607 readers

601 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

What business domains, services, organizations should be nationalized to ensure Canadian sovereignty? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 3 days ago by cyborganism@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

109 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Subscript5676@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’m not promoting private ownership of land, but I fail just fail to see how allowing a single entity to manage land would be better than a more decentralized one. Having one dickhead who owns some land trying to gouge others is bad, but we can go somewhere else. If instead, we have THE dickhead who “owns” ALL of the land trying to gouge groups of people they specifically don’t like (oh you know that those racists and neo-Nazi’s will try to get into government), then where the hell are people supposed to go?

Sure, there may be a handful of landlords who own a lot of land and it’s hard to avoid them, but that’s more telling of an oligarchic society and its problems, and not that private ownership is a problem.

Some of those examples from history weren’t great. If anything, they (aside from the tribal ownership of land) more-so exemplify things that seem to frustrate you: few people own the lands and they’ve dickheads about it, but we are left with no choice.

And just because it never happened in the past, doesn’t mean that it’s bad. Personal property isn’t private property. You can use a piece of land how you wish, but you don’t own it forever: you can use it as long as you’re still using it for your personal needs. This “you” can expand into a group, eg a family, and as long as this group still continues to use it directly, it’s “theirs”. No small private group of people can “own” a piece of land and demand those on it to pay for it.

As for saying that tracking private ownership of land is bureaucratic, that doesn’t sound too different from how it’s inherently bureaucratic that the government owns it all.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

but we can go somewhere else This is where you logic breaks down.

A) People tend to like to stay in the city they're already in, and B) With the current system we have right now nobody who doesn't already have a home can afford to do that

If the government owns the land, and you vote in some fucking nazis, then the people have decided that's what they wanted. That's how democracy works. It's not some sort of Utopian system of government, it's a popularity contest.

No small private group of people can “own” a piece of land and demand those on it to pay for it.

Yes they can, that's literally what a landlord is. If the only options are Landlord A, Landlord B, or Landlord C... you have no options. At least with the government you can vote.

[–] Subscript5676@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Oh you know that people will vote for Nazi’s on a long enough timescale. The fact that we have fascists becoming governments around the world right now, and the fact that there’s some far right multinational organization working on all sorts of disinformation campaigns around the world, is already showing us the limits of democracy: if there’s a large enough group of people with that will (however small they are relative to the whole population), they will exercise everything they can to get into power; start small, underfund education and public welfare, create the environment for public anger, and then feed on that anger to make themselves government.

Anytime anyone tells me that “the people have decided”, I wince, cause people can be gullible, simply overwhelmed by (dis)information or just keeping themselves afloat, be pressured into following suit, etc. Democracy relies on the fact that people can be rational at the voting ballot, but that basis is being undermined.

And sorry, but you’ve misread that paragraph and sentence that you quoted, mostly cause of my wording (now that I look at that), and I apologize for that. I said that in the context of an anarchic society, not our current one.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

You're right about disinformation and stupid voters.

However, you are not proving that's worse than the current capitalists which are literally bleeding everyone dry right now.

[–] Subscript5676@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Oh you won’t be bleed dry by a malicious government. You’d just have literally nowhere legal for you to go. It’d make what ICE is doing down south look tame; there’d be a lot more people who believe or is made to believe that you should gtfo.

And capitalists aren’t just bleeding us dry through land and land alone. Just look at, and I’m waving my hand violently, everything else.

Your proposition is to trade one extreme for another, and all I’m telling you is that it doesn’t work. Why are we trying to jump from one pit into another?

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I don't see how you think the current system is better. Plenty of people already have "nowhere legal" to go.

When someone who can't afford a mortgage or rental right now, they really only have two options. Homeless shelters, if there is space that will take them, and then specific public parks at night (as allowed by the Supreme court of Canada when enough shelter space is not available). They can and are regularly locked up temporarily for trespassing on private property.

You act like the government would just start instantly kicking out everyone if they owned the land. Why would they do that? What's the motive? How do the politicians benefit from such an action? I know and can explain exactly how capitalists benefit from owning the land.

The worst situation you're going to see is specific people being displaced more easily for development, but that's literally the point of this. Oh no, grandma and grandpa can't keep living in a half acre lot 3 minutes from the downtown core anymore, they have to move into a condo or move further out to have a giant house. That's not a problem, that's a solution.

You bring up a boogeyman like ICE in the US, but how would that even apply to government ownership of land in Canada? We don't have a large illegal immigrant population, and even the racial tensions we do have are mild as toast compared to what has existed in the US for a long time. Even if we took the current far-right conservatives, I don't see any indication that this policy would be used to do... anything.

Explain to me against who, and how, a nazi government would use the government ownership of land in Canada against Canadians, that they couldn't already do today if they were voted in.

[–] Subscript5676@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 hours ago

This is going absolutely nowhere. I don’t know why you’re thinking that I think the current system is better. I’ve said that I don’t believe so. What’s I’m also saying is that I don’t believe that governments can make sure that we won’t be on the streets either.

And you’re throwing away my arguments and conveniently forgetting about them and essentially putting me up as some kind of convenient strawman for whatever you’re trying to say. Why wouldn’t a government kick a bunch of people out so that they can build that resort for people that they know would vote for them? A “large illegal immigrant population” is simply a convenient target down south for the fascists Republicunts to channel national anger at so that the people would vote for them. While Canada isn’t as polarized as the States is, and racial tensions aren’t as high, it does exist and isn’t something to dismiss, and given the right events, it could fan the flames. And it doesn’t have to be racial. It can be on nationalistic lines, and I can guarantee you that that sentiment is definitely on the rise.