This seems to make some questionable assumptions about the relationship of immovable property to land.
Actually, the issue is with the word “own”, or, rather, with the concept of property.
Property isn’t a binary yes/no thing. The usual way of describing property is as a “bundle of rights”. In different times and places that bundle may and does contain different numbers of different rights.
For example, a basic property right is the right to exclude. You can (usually) prevent other people from using your property without your consent. Another property right is the right to destroy. Etc. etc.
That’s another issue, yes—and models of land ownership and tenure have historically been pretty varied in terms of the rights they confer. (For a simple example, consider the concept of right of way.) But you don’t need to start breaking property rights down here to get the cracks to show.
Actually, the issue is with the word “own”, or, rather, with the concept of property.
Property isn’t a binary yes/no thing. The usual way of describing property is as a “bundle of rights”. In different times and places that bundle may and does contain different numbers of different rights.
For example, a basic property right is the right to exclude. You can (usually) prevent other people from using your property without your consent. Another property right is the right to destroy. Etc. etc.
That’s another issue, yes—and models of land ownership and tenure have historically been pretty varied in terms of the rights they confer. (For a simple example, consider the concept of right of way.) But you don’t need to start breaking property rights down here to get the cracks to show.