Liminary & Somewhat Pro-Corporate Remarks with a Digression of an Aristocratic Nature

The property owners of London are sitting ducks to anyone wanting to steal from them, whether they be thugs or politicians. A long time ago, when only property owners were voters, the government was at least a bit more responsive to a property owner's needs.

We unfortunately, don't usually get to go out an find unowned land and homestead it. Rather, someone holds title to the land, so we've got to buy the title from someone. Now, usually the title system and the actual homesteading of the land overlap, but sometimes not. So, the tricky (but important) thing to do is have someone homestead the titles. A corporation could do this very well. Property owners would have voting stock, there could be a board, and a CEO. I suspect in practice it would actually look a lot like an aristocracy or a monarchy. Indeed, one could argue the task could be accomplished quite well via a sole proprietorship, though I do think any royal activities are far better limited to judging cases between owners rather than coming up with exciting plans for how anything should be deployed for the future. Kings, or CEOs for that matter, are often tempted to increase revenue or growth at the expense of the stability (and/or rights) of the individual property owner.

With careful supervision, such a corporation would be a stable way to run a city. The stock-holders would want to carefully improve the city, since this would in turn increase the value of their holdings, but they wouldn't engage in, for instance, imminent domain seizures or ridiculous levels of debt- both jeopardize their personal holdings.

Just in case I confused anyone with by mentioning aristocracy, let me do it again:
A private property anarchist- a. believes in private property, and b. believes in the division of labor( and a lot more, but this is all I need for the following). So far, at least, I have not read about or heard a private property anarchist suggest that he didn't believe in division of labor, and I assume he would be because private property anarchists seem to be the sort of rare people who study Austrian Economics.

If you believe in the division of labor, you might, upon reflection, realize that some people may be better at administering land than others, and that the aristocrats of old may actually have been, for the most part, the sort of people who were good at the old-fashioned, family-centric form of capitalism that occurred the whole word round long before anyone came up with the word. It is by no means clear that everyone is equally capable, for instance, of keeping a house. I know I am not very good at it, and there are people so bad at it in my town that they spend most of their time (even in this heat) sitting outside. So, it stands to reason that over time only those good at administering property would own property, and they'd lease to those with less capacity for the task. Landlords are still, mysteriously, called landlords...