I’m a capitalist to the core, but I have no problem with the ideas of renting things that are cheaper to rent than to buy, or with “eating bugs”. Alternative protein sources are pretty interesting to me, actually. Every dollar I can cut from my cost of living is a dollar I can use to buy assets - and to me, an “asset” is something that either produces income or appreciates at a rate above the cost of maintenance.

If I were a collectivist, what’s the advantage of trying to force either of those things on people - or even to incentivize it? Why would I care how people feel about their food and property? I’d want to change the structure of society itself to provide more obvious value in public services than the free market provides privately. Angering people by imposing things on them - especially if that imposition is easily assigned to the things I’d want to grow, like the government - would be extremely counter-productive.