On the surface this sounds like a terrible and extreme mindset, so I thought about how one might go about disproving it.

Clearly if everyone owned enough productive land to be self-sufficient it would be false. We are told this is still theoretically possible, but it's a finite resource so it's not a given.

Conversely, if one person owned all the land with the arbitrary power of taxing or restricting its use... that would make it true. Similarly with two, three, a dozen...

So contrary to my bias, it would seem a safer bet to consider it true (absent better info or theory)... and its truth may simply be a matter of degrees. I wonder where the logical (almost mathematical or numeric) tipping point is, and how the problem could more precisely be defined or measured.