I wasn't really responding to your point. But denying someone the ability to buy means banning someone else from selling, which does interfere with property rights. I mean, you could say this is inherentlyYour comparing apples to oranges because I am not proposing a limit to what 'one owns' but a limit to what a foreign citizen/country 'can own' as in what they have the right to buy in the first place as far as a share of the U.S. economy is concerned.
I'm not saying that rules = socialism, as there are some basic rules about who owns what, like taking by force is wrong, etc. I'm saying that violations of property rights -> socialism. And the simple rule is that people start owning themselves at birth (not socialism, but instead recognizing private property in much the same way as a homesteading act on unclaimed land). So unless the person actually sold themselves into slavery (think indentured servitude or debt slavery), then no one would be able to own a slave. Now, banning people from selling themselves into slavery is a tiny bit of socialism, as it does infringe on one's property rights to their own body, but I'll take a minor bit of socialism here.And just who gets to declare that people own themselves, and why isn't that socialism since said person is making rules about who owns another person?
In contrast, slavery as commonly done is very socialistic: First, not recognizing someone's inherent right to ownership over one's own body. Second, the governmental systems enforcing slavery. Third, frequently the government is the chief slaver, including the draft, most communist countries forcing people to work, etc.
One can quite easily have social responsibilities that aren't enforced by government. This isn't socialism, as it isn't done by force.Well, if any social obligation or government control is socialism, then every human society and every conceivable human society is socialist, in which case calling something socialist is equivalent to just calling it human, and thus means nothing.
Everyone has limits to what they can own, and what you can do with it. In our system, you own the water that falls on your roof, but your right to take water from the river has limits.
A fathers right to do what he wants with his money is limited by a responsibility to not let their child starve.
I will not cede the idea of social responsibility to the socialists.
As for the water from the roof example, that has to do with property rights as well. You don't own the river, but you might have a partial right to water from the river, etc. This has nothing to do with socialism either.