> I can imagine a world without private land ownership that still grants people rights to privacy and autonomy in their home
I dare say that you don't have to imagine, and there are past and current examples of societies that are closer to your vision than what modern developed nations allow for in terms of private land ownership. I think the median person is better off in systems that allow for private land ownership than not.
Look at China: they don't have to deal with private property rights, so they're able to build tons of infrastructure to benefit the people (good!). But the same powers that let government do that are also used to horribly oppress minority groups like the Uyghurs (bad!).
Of course, things owned by the people can be run for the benefit of the people if the people are composed of angels in perpetuity; but that, I'm afraid, will have to remain in the realm of imagination. ;-)
> But the same powers that let government do that are also used to horribly oppress minority groups like the Uyghurs (bad!).
And this kind of thing doesn't happen outside of Chinese pseudo-Communism? That would be an unreasonable assertion.
Look at Vienna instead, where the municipal government owns a large share of quality housing. I've heard it works relatively well; for example, living in low-income housing doesn't mean that you get kicked out if your income rises. You get to stay in your community indefinitely even as you advance in your career. This is an example of how it's possible for good things to exist without some rando middleman getting rich off of it. (I mean, maybe some rando is getting rich here, I'm sure there's still a nonzero level of corruption; but it's not a system designed to enrich private individuals.)
Things owned by anyone will be run to the detriment of the people without wise and careful systems built. Build good systems and iterate on them and you can have good systems. Build nothing, and you can have bad systems run by private individuals. The idea that private owners of land/capital are somehow immune to the corruption that makes government so scary is complete nonsense. It's just that nothing works without putting in work.
> The idea that private owners of land/capital are somehow immune to the corruption that makes government so scary is complete nonsense.
Neither private nor public owners are immune to corruption, but private owners don't operate with the legal monopoly on violence that the government does, so the consequences are a lot worse in the latter case.
I believe what Vienna gets right that complements subsidized public housing is that it doesn't have US-style dysfunctional zoning and regulatory processes ("environmental" review, etc.) for construction, so the free market is actually able to produce enough supply to meet demand.
In addition, there aren't bizarre "tenant-friendly" laws such as those that prevent eviction even in the case of nonpayment of rent; it is my understanding that this applies to public housing, as well. And I would bet that the public housing of Vienna is not subject to the same level of social degradation as those in the US, making them altogether more pleasant places to live in.
I dare say that you don't have to imagine, and there are past and current examples of societies that are closer to your vision than what modern developed nations allow for in terms of private land ownership. I think the median person is better off in systems that allow for private land ownership than not.
Look at China: they don't have to deal with private property rights, so they're able to build tons of infrastructure to benefit the people (good!). But the same powers that let government do that are also used to horribly oppress minority groups like the Uyghurs (bad!).
Of course, things owned by the people can be run for the benefit of the people if the people are composed of angels in perpetuity; but that, I'm afraid, will have to remain in the realm of imagination. ;-)