Yes, there are differences, such as no one tells me what business to start, run, or employ with, but isn't there enough control over commerce such that the government is only a few steps away from total ownership? The answer lies in the details, which few people bother to understand. Specifically, ownership does not imply, and has never in the past implied total control. Across cultures and times. It seems to me that this should be the starting point of comparisons, not some imaginary "absolute control = ownership."
If you look at real estate, for instance, the greatest bundle of rights you may get is fee simple. This is control that you are left with after certain (four categories of) rights have been retaied by the goevernment. This is a part of common law that goes back to XXIII century or so. So, when you own your house, it does not mean that you have absolute control over it.
Once we abandon this abstract and irrelevant idea of absolute control, the only well posed questions that remain are of the form, do I want to give up control in this or that area?
People complain about taxes and view this as blurring boundaries of property rights. This is a twofold error. Firstly, one of the greatest kinds of control exersised with respect to an owned property is the ability to dispose of it. There is hardly any interference in this area: the government does not dicate to you whether, where, to whom, or when you should sell of gift your house. You are taking this for granted, yet this progress was made only when we moved to the "capitalistic" society.
Secondly, your taxes provide you with the ownership of a great number of things. In essense, you hire your government(s) to produce public goods for you that would not be provided in a government-free economy. See my previous posts for examples. What about profit? If a corporation must give up 33+% of the profit to the government and the people are taxed at 65% of the money they are paid (this is Sweedish, not the U.S. rate),
If I control 33+% of a company, do I not basically own it? No, you the government "controls" 33% of the profit, not the assets. You decide what to do with assets. This shows the main problem with your arguments: if you choose to take for granted a huge numbers of freedoms that your property rights provide for you, nothing is going to make you happy. Absolute control has never been implemented in any civilized society. This is an ill posed question.
No, we are not technically a communist state, but we are not that far from it. No comment here. You are not being fair to your own country.
If I take something from you and decide what you will receive in return, then you have lost authority over your labors that produced it. You have lost your freedom to decide. You are then a slave as it is the master who controls your labors.
Communists believe that the loss of control does not mean a loss, but a win, if the government returns something to you. If that is the case, then we should all gladly fork over 100% of our earning for the great investment that the communists believe the government provides. Right?
I am not a communist. I believe that I, and I alone, can decide what is best for my labors. I decide how to provide for my family and my community.
One phrase: Death Taxes. They do tell you how to gift your property. The government takes it at your death. Government ownership of property is a basic tenant of communism.
You also forgot one important point: The government takes your property from you, such that you do not get to decide when or to whom you will dispose of your property.
The government takes ten times more from me than I receive. Is that the investment you deem so proper? Only a government can provide such things as roads, but I only argue that our government provides far more than the constitution allows it, and takes from us in the same regard.
Wanna explain that one? The government charges "land rents". We know them as property taxes. Fail to pay your rent, you lose your right to live on the property and pay rent. In England that was a strong point of contention.
Have you ever run a company? Decisions on assets are based on the tax code, not what is best for the company.
Remember this important point: Control can be direct or indirect, and both can be tyranny.