1: You can break anything into monetary terms if you wish however it only counts as pay if a direct excahnge has been made. Thus if you are given something for which no work has done it is not pay.
It has never been a political philosophy. Adam Smith made a point of driving all politics out of his works. You'd have to be really streching it to tie it with Ayn Rand whose politics are flaky at best and could be tacked to pretty much anything at worst.
It beats me why you are still trying to conflagrate socialism and capitalism to be somehow political rivals. Capitalism has NEVER ever been a political pholosophy. If anything the two are complimentary. It is like comparing oil in a car to the car. The car is the political philosophy and capitalism is the oil that enables it to function. In this case it is capital that is the oil.
Again it is not necessary to always think along the lines of "large scale". What is this facination? State socialism isn't the only form out there. It is just one of a multitude.
Can you tell me why tithe barns are a bad survival strategy. I'd really love to know. As far as I can see it has been one of the most significant cultural affections. Without it we would not be human civilisation.
2: Whenever a country does not operate a national military a civil war starts as local areas always define themselves as mini-states and try break free. If you care to show a single entity in history where this has not happened I will personally wipe your ass the next time you go to the toilet.
3: Real and personal property are legal and scientific terms. You can't get around this I'm afraid. Real property is immovable such as land and infrasructure. Personal property is movable and that includes cars without gas. Bags of seeds grow into crops which are moveable I'm afraid.
If there is a shortage of land in Kansas you cannot go to Idaho pick some up at a cheap price and cary it back to Kansas (the soil/dirt does not count as land btw) Pretty fundamental and obvious.
Why is the distinction required? Capitalism for one. Capitalism is economic system based on the MOVEMENT of capital. Any form of capital that cannot move means that no competition can exist for that form of capital. This was pretty well laid out by Adam Smith, the Neoclassicist and the Neoliberal forms of capitalism. The other forms pretty much all capitulated except the anarcho-capitalists for whom property rights trumped everything ...including common sense.
It is a problem because the goal of capitalism is to maintain liquidity. If a property owner demands rent then that liquidity is pulled from the workings of capitalism and into a dead pool. This was first pointed out by Adam Smith and marks a major difference between capitalism and feudalism (and Marxism actually as Marx himself was an aristocrat and this upstart capitalism was trying to relegate the value of land to zero). This has been aptly demonstrated by the 2008/9 crash where landlords discovered they could still put up prices even in a recession. The result of this being liquidity was sucked out of a barely functioning market and still hasn't recovered. Pop the property bubbles round the world and I guarantee the economy would pick up.
4: Fiat money is a concept, an exchange of value. You can't own a concept. This is backed up by law. Wait til someone in your family leaves a will with a substantial cash element. You are going to have the shock of your life.
Property is theft is a libertarian concept and has nothing to to do with money or socialism. it was coined by the first person to be called a libertarian Proudhon. Taxation and money are different again as the state provides a service by allowing and guaranteeing a standard medium of exchange. All parts of that medium are defacto owned by the state.