Do you not consider yourself a liberal? You’re proposing a socialist redistribution of land, which is far to the left of any major political party.
(I’m pointing out an inconsistency in your political labeling, not commenting on your suggestion.)
(I’m pointing out an inconsistency in your political labeling, not commenting on your suggestion.)
Having spent a bit of time trying to understand this band of the spectrum, here's my very rough mental model. Regarding economics, you can think of the left continuum as moving roughly from liberal -> progressive -> social democrat -> socialist -> communist.
* Liberals pretty much favor what you might call free markets, with some regulations against the worst excesses (pollution, fraud, etc).
* Progressives tend to favor a more Keynesian approach, with the government stepping in to try and tone down the amplitude of the boom/bust cycle, pursuing aggressive antitrust action, etc (think Elizabeth Warren).
* Social Democrats believe that capitalism fundamentally produces inequality, but also wealth, so to maintain social cohesion, markets have to be balanced with a strong welfare state, or safety nets (Sanders circa present day probably fits here).
* Socialists believe that capitalism is an inherently exploitative distribution of _ownership_ where an elite social class owns most of the necessities like housing, hospitals, factories, etc.[1] Socialists believe that that ownership is the result of workers being forced into a bad deal: having to sell their labor in exchange for access to those necessities, and that the remedy is for those workers to unite to wrest those necessities back from the owning class.
* Communists accept the same principles as socialists, but believe that the end goal for politics should be a society where all resources are collectively owned and distributed on the basis of need. Authoritarian communists believe that a strong centralized government is needed to make this happen (think Stalin or Mao), and that once the redistribution happens, that government will fade out of necessity. On the other hand, libertarian communists (also known as anarchists) believe that centralizing state power will only reproduce the exploitation of a capitalism under different owners.
[1] Not all socialists oppose markets, some think they're great, but that individual firms should be collectively owned by their employees, rather than external shareholders.
Somehow the term "liberal" in the US (though also in some other parts of the world) came to be associated with progressives, who are yet still usually differentiated from the Socialists and other "far left" ideologies. Most of the academic socialist, communist, radical feminist and anarchist work is strongly critical of liberalism, even its metaphysics and epistemology.
Indeed, Marx himself started (if his early texts are anything to go by) as a liberal in that sense. The key turning point for him was his critique of liberalism in his On The Jewish Question. From SEP:
>Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings who are a threat to our liberty and security. Therefore liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility — for Marx, the fact — that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. Accordingly, insisting on a regime of rights encourages us to view each other in ways that undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation.