This may sound extreme, and I don't quite believe it, but I'm thinking on it. But the long and short of it is that I'm not even sure we should allow for the own

This may sound extreme, and I don't quite believe it, but I'm thinking on it. But the long and short of it is that I'm not even sure we should allow for the ownership of land. Going back far enough all land was stolen (central park, anything dealing with first peoples) or conned from someone, some war determined it, it was sold and sold again. The only two arguments of justification are 1. they were conquered so it's done (basically might makes right) or 2. it was so long ago that we shouldn't worry about it, and that wasn't me specifically. Besides if Climate Change ends up half as bad as I think it will, some areas will need to designated as "no farm zones" or "no more people zones", some towns will need to be closed and maybe turned back into wilderness. The problems are already there, like California having a 20 year drought and importing most of it's water, at what point do you say "this is the new normal and we need to plan as such" because we continue to grow water heavy crops like pistachios in California when over 20 years tells us we shouldn't. But protection of ownership of a thing that probably shouldn't be owned will halt any effective amounts of change to be able to happen. I'm not even entirely sure what I'm trying to say as I've not thought it out, but just recognize that we have these assumptions about things that maybe aren't or shouldn't be true.