>Land has value for all sorts of reasons...
Land is only valuable due to scarcity. You really can't make more of it even if you dig up parts of another bit of land to dump into a bay (like how they made the airport in Tokyo).

And the infrastructure on it doesn't make land any more valuable because those things (buildings, roads, farms, etc) are property in the sense they can be put just about anywhere and require labor to make them all. Land doesn't require any labor to exist. It's just a given like air and fresh water. It's the baseline from which all economic transactions can operate.

>but this doesn't mean that anybody who owns some has a "monopoly" on it

If you own the land in an area by definition you got a monopoly there. And it becomes a problem the ownership of land becomes centralized to the point that corporations like what you see with slums not improving the property on the land (due to property tax as one significant factor) and still extracting rents above market level from tenants. But that's a special case and it's one that really suggest you read up on when you have free time.

>What capital goods do people actually have a monopoly on, though, which has not been granted to them by special law? Any capital good you can think of (outside patent or copyright) can be, and usually is, owned by many people.

1. There's no such thing as a "special" law. There's just laws of certain types. Sorry for the pedantry but I think trying to sequester a significant social and legal trend as "special" hides the deeper problem attached to the fact that those laws exist (see Enclosure Act from 19th century England as an example of this).

2. And of those people, does it seem logical to allow them impede the utilization their capital when they leave it fallow or otherwise try to depress wages while utilizing it as a practice of employment? Again, this the point that I think you're missing or otherwise discounting. Specifically, that the ownership of capital should be held in common so that everyone can have equal access (not necessarily equal opportunity as achievement) to the means to sustain themselves. This doesn't need something as rigid as a Five Year Plan or any Soviet-era bureaucracies. It can be as simple as a cooperative shared among members of the neighborhood or the city.

>What if I leave land fallow for the pure enjoyment of it, or for natural restoration?

Then you should have no issues with paying for a land value tax (which would be lower than a property tax in most cases) for that use.

>Great, what if a cooperative fails, as they will?

What if publicly traded corporations fails, as they will? A cooperative isn't some radically new concept or institution. Your local credit unions are a form of cooperative in the current legal framework. You have also utility cooperatives, farming cooperatives, and so on. None of these fail any more or less than a private/public corporation. I think you need to study this part of the matter on your own because honestly HN isn't the place to go indepth with alternative incorporation schemes and laws. Best to ask someone who's done this sort of thing. Best bet is to look for someone who's in a diary cooperative. Lots of food fanatics use them to get unpasteurized milk.

>Because all goods are essentially capital...

No. Just, no. The burger I'll eat today for lunch is no more capital than the notebook I use to write my notes on. Capital are goods which can directly make more goods. Think ore, timber, machines, patents, corporate assets (money, stocks, etc). These are capital. Individual's personal cars, homes, and skills aren't capital by any definition from any school of economics that I'm at least aware of (there might one but I seriously doubt it's considered orthodox).