As I see it, a large part of the problem is the fact that current models of ownership have in fact come adrift from their foundations: landownership used to be part of the machinery of government and many of the powers landowners have were originally administrative. They mutated into private rights, largely by accident, over a period of centuries (and, since land was the primary form of wealth, they provided a template for laws on ownership of other forms of productive property).

From that perspective, I’d say a more inclusive economy can indeed be built on the foundations of the current model, but only by bringing the current model back to its roots.

To my mind, truly fundamental reform of ownership has to start with restoring integrity to inheritance law and reasserting the element of trusteeship which was implicit in landlords’ rights. The power to nominate a successor didn’t come about as a simple privilege, it was an administrative responsibility – and re-establishing that principle would make it far easier to introduce subsequent reforms that would lead to a much more equitable distribution of wealth. Another important step would be establishing explicitly that all ownership of land includes an element of trusteeship (i.e. all landowners are trustees for future generations, and owners of all agricultural and industrial land are trustees for the public at large whose survival and well-being depends on them). Those two reforms would alter the dynamics of how ownership works without any explicit redistribution.

Unfortunately most of the solutions I see being put forward seem to treat that historical distortion as untouchable, trying to build alternative ownership structures in competition with what we currently have. But unless we challenge the underlying perversity of existing law, I think the kind of alternatives this article talks about will always be hostage to shifts in the political climate.