Socialism broadly is the desire for a system which allows every individual exactly as much autonomy, government influence, and ownership of their own labor as every other individual in that given society.

Lol replace "Socialism" with "Individualism" or "Individualist capitalism" and pretty much the definitions match. So socialism = Capitalism? Right I don't think capitalism means what you think it means.

Some of it certainly should be. I may draw the line differently than others, but broadly I would be totally for immediately abolishing all rent-seekers who produce nothing and leech off of others only by "owning" their means of basic survival such as hedge-fund managed housing for example.

I don't think you understand the implications of this. He who creates owns. So he who creates can create a license to rent or he can sell that right to another. So say Bob builds a house. Are you going to tell Bob he can't charge someone for using his creation? Do you even realize how bizarre that sounds? Now what if Bob wants to sell his house to Charlie? Just like one would sell any other widget. Again are you going to tell Charlie he can't charge for use of his purchase? That is what rent seeking is. If you banned rent seeking it would set a precedent to limit any monetary gain from any use of a created object. Are you going to ban Air BnB? What about subletting? Software licensing? Video rentals? Where does that ball of yarn end?

Also if you don't like monopolies why is it okay to use a monopoly on violence to tell someone else what to do or not do with their stuff in the first place?

How would an individual accrue these things?

So long as it was voluntary does it matter?

If this individual accrued these necessities of life, thus prohibiting others from accessing those necessities of life, wouldn't violence be the inevitable consequence of that from starving people who have lost all rationality from hunger?

Possibly but then no one forced those other people from selling their food stocks. This is essentially the same kind of debate Nestle is having with Canada. Nestle believes that no, people do not have a right to water and everything is for sale. However Canada's water is essentially collectively owned as part of Crown land and part of the commons. Technically Canada is still under British rule even though we're independent and self governing. Ergo all that collective land is technically owned by the Crown, in this case now King Charles. Thus is why you can go to any lake or river in Canada and the cost of the water is like $0.01/gal. Nestle tried to take advantage of this and there was a huge court battle. IIRC they were banned/fined. But yeah the core issue is are resources owned collectively or competed over? Also a nice middle ground might be a cooperative. Or you might do what the FN did and do away with the concept of owning raw resources entirely. You can't own water, dirt or land, just what you make. You could also make x territory a legal entity to prevent excess harvesting and pollution. Or just disassociate from those that didn't respect the earth. But yeah. So what if people are starving? If they have nothing to trade then they starve. This is where we get back into the gift economy bit.

As far as territory, how would an individual accrue territory and by what means would that individual maintain their claim? How would it benefit them to maintain it so, unless they plan on creating a family cult system?

Do you know how much land is required to run a farm? To grow grain crops like wheat, corn, oats, barely? You don't need to have a cult to need a ton of cubic. And maintanaince is simple: hire some people or get some volunteers. What if you wanted to start a homestead? Or start building a settlement? Also back in the day you could accrue it by just working the land. If you don't need the govt's permission then you just go out and claim an area of land and start developing it.

The inhibiting factor for land development is land taxes and aquisition. If any random person could find a spot of undeveloped land and start building you'd find a lot more homes built and stuff being made.

This is touching on an extremely important dynamic. Why do Westerners live in such privilege while the people living in their colonies do not? The answer here is not to redistribute, it’s to end the exploitation. I think Westerners are competent enough to sustain themselves and their cultures without the need to bleed people from across the world. I believe it’s possible that minimum standards of health greater than what even I have access to now (racketeers are between me and healthcare in my country) are achievable in every part of the world in a fairer system.

1. Being a third world country does not make one a 1st world country's colony. 2. Empire is BASED on exploitation. It's what drives the growth of empire and sustains it. What happened when the Roman empire stopped expanding? Political and economic corruption and eventual collapse. What's happening to the U.S. now that it can't just go and declare war on x country every half century? Systemic domestic instability. War is profitable. So is outsourcing. What would happen if outsourcing ended? Do you think customers would be okay with a sharp rise in product prices? No. What about exploiting prison labor instead? Wait that's just introducing debt slavery! Crime = loss in value = debt = exchanged for labor = debt slave.