I don't even know where to begin here. Of course we have the land to spread people out, but it's insanely expensive on everyone (especially those who are spread out) over time to sustain it. [1]
You have a lot of straw man arguments that but the one that I'll focus on the most is "Our leaders just FORCE us to flock to cities cpz it's cheaper on infrastructure" - prove it.
Infrastructure work is supervised and licensed by the goverment. You cant start building a city in the middle of nowhere even if its your own land. You have to follow standards and regulations enforced on you.
Last time I checked it looks similar in every 1st world country. Ppl are slowly losing means of production and being moved to subscription plan to even live.
Anyone who has lived in a rural area that hasn't been subsidized can tell you why spreading out kinda sucks. The power company charges you $100k to run a line to your house. The phone company charges you $20k to run a copper line to give you 100kb DSL. Water has to be pumped from a well which costs $30-50k to drill.
We don't really need to cram people in elbow to elbow like New York City though. We just need walkable downtowns where you can pop on down the street from your apartments to the market to get ingredients for dinner. Even just building our houses closer together and putting in dedicated pedestrian paths is enough honestly.
Infrastructure is centralized, if it was more spread out everyone could afford a nice house with own big garden and vegetables field.
Stop making it sound like its the ppl issue they want to live near nature and have own land.
Too high density of ppl per square meter has huge disadventages in well being of those ppl and their overall health.
There is so much unused land in the world - trying to say we dont have it is silly.
Our leaders just FORCE us to flock to cities cpz its cheaper on infrastructure.