The colloquial use of the term 'landlord' equivocates between the role of property manager and the role of titleholder. The latter is the only one that really deserves the feudal term. Property managers do indeed earn their living. They are often just contracted by titleholders. Because the titleholder is not obligated to do anything at all. Their role is to own, not to do.
If the same person serves both roles then they are wearing two hats. Just as if someone were a stockholder and an employee of the same company.
if you're against title-holding, you are really against the idea of ownership, and capital.
> Because the titleholder is not obligated to do anything at all. Their role is to own, not to do.
their role is to provide capital to purchase the title. And in the future, some other capital holder will buy the title off you.
This whole process is what enables investment in the land in the first place. It's the same idea as shareholders buying shares off other shareholders. These "secondary" buyers don't directly contribute to the company (analogous to the land), but their role is necessary to distribute the risk of investment across time. High risk takers buy the IPO, and lower risk takers buy after the company has proven to be successful.
This isn't any different from land holding. High risk buyers would buy new land (offered by the crown/gov't), and perhaps develop it (or not, if they want to take on a loss since undeveloped land is money-losing). But once the land is proven valuable - e.g., the city is expanding into this new land now - the value grows, and they can sell to a different title holder who want more certainty of the value of the land.
> if you're against title-holding, you are really against the idea of ownership, and capital.
Is anyone in this discussion against title-holding per se? Not that I can see. The point is that title-holding should come with some responsibilities, specifically to pay a tax proportional to the value of the title. For comparison, someone is not necessarily against work because they believes that earning income comes with responsibility to pay taxes proportional to that income.
> pay a tax proportional to the value of the title.
Would you also agree then, that holding onto shares of a company would also require you to pay a proportion of the value of those shares in tax? In other words, this is a wealth tax?
What I agree with is of little consequence, because I'm not proposing this form of taxation[1]. But, interpreting LVT proponents, I believe they would say no, it's not a wealth tax, it's very specifically a land tax. I believe the point is to replace (all?) other forms of taxation.
[1] although I'm optimistic about it and might become a proponent in the future if it seems like an effective policy.
If the same person serves both roles then they are wearing two hats. Just as if someone were a stockholder and an employee of the same company.