[mises]

> I myself vehemently oppose the idea of collective ownership of means of production, which public companies embody

I wouldn't call this "public" ownership, as the "public" does not own a company. Investors own a company, the pool of investors is simply enlarged such that the public may invest.

[baybal2]

In my understanding, collective ownership !== public ownership and is just anything where the amount of owners is > 1

[k_sh]

I've always taken "public ownership" to imply "publicly-traded company", which means John Q. Public can call up his broker and buy some shares in the company.

This in contrast to privately-held companies, which can and do have many owners, but whose owners are acquired through partnership, investment, key employees within the company, and M&A - but not through the sale of securities.

[adamsea]

Does that mean you oppose all companies or business which are owned by more than a single person?

[baybal2]

Yes

[memmcgee]

No that's still private ownership. Amazon, for example, is not collectively owned, even though it's owned by more than just Jeff Bezos.