I know it is easier for me to discuss what I am against. So I thought it would be good to articulate what I am FOR.
1. A new economic system for the 21st century that centers the requirements of the natural world and economic fairness. What are those requirements? The end of extractive practices including the extraction of oil, natural gas, and coal. The end of polluting practices, including chemical and plastic pollution. This would necessitate a complete reframing of lifestyle for most people in the co called first world. Much less so in the third world.
2. A sacred commons. The first item on my list would take care of some of the second. But the concept of the commons goes deeper than that. I have written an introduction to the global commons that can be found among my writings here, and will be creating a series on the subject. One notable aspect is the sacred part. It may mean different things to different people. It certainly dies not require a deity as such to recognize and appreciate the extraordinary nature of life on earth, and to hold it in such high regard as to do nothing to harm the web.
3. A powerful and unbreakable social safety net that affords the basic requirements of a decent life to every citizen. This would take the form of a guaranteed minimum income. Money in itself is just a storage place for energy and a means if exchange. There are numerous reasons why a particular person might not be able to contribute enough energy to live in reasonable conditions. We need a guaranteed minimum income because we are our brothers keeper.
4. Strongly regulated (small "c") capitalism. Private ownership is not always bad, and in some cases, such as home ownership and small business ownership, fills a vital psychological need. The problem comes when the private sector replaces the public. This has happened in the United States and been exported globally. And it is killing the living planet and destroying democracy around the world. We can make some parts of the capitalist credo workable. But not without a total overhaul. And none of the basic needs should be in private hands. They are just too important.
5. Fair taxation that protects the poor and middle while still giving the ambitious something to strive for. But the ceiling for private wealth should be one billion dollars. No private person needs more than that. It is enough to live as royalty. Any more allows private persons to actually be royalty, an anathema to democracy and a threat to the natural systems upon which all life depends.
Instead of the duality of government/private how about a third option--community?
"A powerful and unbreakable social safety net that affords the basic requirements of a decent life to every citizen."
We actually had that. It was called Mother Earth. One may recall that the indigenous of North and South America were doing fine by any standard of today.
"This would take the form of a guaranteed minimum income."
Again Mother Earth provided that as well. With one requirement you had to get going even to live at subsistence level. In a book called
The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area by Margolin, Malcolm,
if I recall correctly even those peaceful tribes booted out those who would not help out the tribe. They could live on the fringe of the tribal village and scrounge scraps but to be part of the tribe meant to contribute to the common good.
Have you read Communalism: from its Origins to the Twentieth Century by Kenneth Rexroth.
If you have I would like to converse/write to you with that as a background source of ideas.
I appreciate your thinking and living.