We are one of millions of species on this planet. Our significance is definitely very small in the overall picture.
In some senses that is true, but at the same time we are highly conscious and thus highly capable, which gives us a great responsiblity. I am really just wanting to look at the practical reality, whereby we are basically guests on this living planet and not it's 'owner'.
our production, the individual's production, cannot be forcibly taken from them. Individual liberty doesn't exist without private property.
I did not mention taking anything by force. I disagree with the second statement here, since from my perspective I can argue that everything that individuals create is actually created out of matter that is universal and to claim ownership of it is to forcefully take that matter from everyone else - these things work both ways. I can still be free as an individual without being driven to shoot someone in the face if they 'cross onto my land'. I would argue that the use of force to enforce private property is an infringement on individual liberty to a much higher degree than the reverse is true.
Even a small garden takes work. The planet does not have an apple tree on every corner. There isn't plentiful food all over. To support even a small family, you have to work very hard to develop your land.
Have you studied permaculture? It is the science of working with the land such that very little work needs to be done to receive abundant food. We essentially learn how the planet works and work with it, instead of trying to force our own logic onto it - the result is epic efficiency. Food forests are a great idea: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=food+forest
Part of the reason why the planet does not have abundant, free food is because of the systematic removal of free food sources by 'vested interest'. The same 'vested interests' that currently hoard most of the wealth of the planet in other forms too. They used capitalism to achieve that, it was not a natural process.
To do what you suggest, millions of people would have to be forced to work in food production for others. Who's going to force them?
No, not at all, no-one needs to be forced. Actually, people are being forced to work due to economic circumstances right now in massive numbers - they would be much better off learning to work with the land in harmony and not for exploitative capitalist groups.
That's because most people do not grow their own food, and there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone had to work to get that food to the point where the person buying it could. It cost time and fuel and other resources to bring it to market.
The main problem I feel is a misalignment of action and intent. Instead of taking actions to secure the food supply through local growing (as you point to) (I grow some of my own food here) - people are being directed (From school and media etc.) to look in completely different directions, which mostly do not serve them or anyone other than the corporate elites. I have worked in offices and I know for sure that some people work hard in them, but at the same time they spend most of their time doing tasks that really don't serve anyone and ultimately I know for sure that actually most of them are pretty lazy on an average day. Ironically, it doesn't actually take all that much work to grow an abundance of food if just a small group of people work together. No-one needs to be forced to do this, it is just done because it needs to be done and it can actually be enjoyable too (it feels good).
People could live in places that have plenty of food, but they choose not to do it. Who's going to force them to move?
Again, I have not mentioned force, force is not necessary. What is needed is empowerment of their own will, such that they take the action needed for them to find real balance.
I'm an office worker, and I'm definitely not lazy. By lazy above I meant people who do not work, who leech off others for everything (welfare), and who also do not produce their own food via a garden, etc.
Ironically, it is the world's 'most successful capitalists' who typically do the least work and the most leaching (in the form of government handouts and just sheer profit generated by their amassed capital). Why should someone who inherits 10 billion dollars spend the rest of their life on yachts and in 5 star hotels, having never done any work at all? That is the pinnacle of laziness is it not? They can even hire someone to wipe their own butt if they like and some alleged Royals actually did.
The old saying remains very true. "If you don't work, you don't eat." Just be sure the work you do is valuable to the market, for you can't simply dig and refill holes all day.
I'll add an even older saying here "if it's not good for all, it's not good at all". This does not mean that everyone must like and do the same things - it simply means that if I make a decision that harms someone, somewhere, then it is not a good decision. If I choose to amass wealth and then use it to affect others I have never met - perhaps by buying up their land or taking natural resources without consent or consideration - then my actions are not good, yet they will still be called 'good business' by some.