On the first point, what exactly is the mechanism for those failures, and how much worse are they then the failures within private ownership. If the mechanism i

On the first point, what exactly is the mechanism for those failures, and how much worse are they then the failures within private ownership. If the mechanism is, say, intentional collusion and undermining by other nations who fear for their private ownership order, or awful leadership, or just overblown by a biased media, then it would indicate the experiment was a poor one. Not to mention the massive failures that faith in private ownership lead to, exemplified by bubbles and crashed, but also including vast and constantly growing economic inequality. Second, property itself is oppression, since it is the artificial exclusion of people from resources, and thus allowing it is more of a tradeoff, not some fundamental right. I would say that personal property (property you actively and personally use) could be a legitimate natural right, but that is directly at odds with the more artificial and modern private property (enclosure of everything guaranteed perpetually by the state) as it excludes rent. On your "point zero", maybe the most interesting one... you point out that regulation can help mitigate the problems of private ownership. I would go one further and say this points out a false binary... every corporation I'd somewhere between fully public and fully private, because the more regulation you add the more public it becomes. I am wondering how you reconcile a the freedom narrative with the fact that regulation is partial forms of oppression? Personally, I've dropped that concept long ago, and am more interested in finding the most democratic (ie public) we can go along that scale while still providing just enough minimal flexibility and rewards to those operating it to maintain as many of the benefits of unfettered capitalism as possible.