I mostly agree, mixed systems are very much the way to go and in fact I thin in practice are inevitable. The USSR and China never entirely eliminated private capital, not even North Korea and the US provides many socialised services to citizens.

I don't quite agree on land value. Real investment in land means capital improvements such as building accommodation, offices, factories, retail premises, etc. These can be highly productive. It's why I favour the idea of a land value tax, to actually encourage investment in productive uses for land and penalise passive rent seeking.

I'm surprised you mention China positively in this regard, regional Chinese local governments have been largely funding themselves though massive land sales to private owners for decades. This often involved throwing off collectivised farmers with no or nominal compensation because the land belonged to the state. Arbitrary confiscation and abrogation of property rights with no appeal. Right up your street. Ive seen it happen in my wife's home town. With the recent collapse of property markets in China this is grinding to a halt.

I agree the US view on these things seems to almost cartoonishly polarised from a European perspective. They do have an incredibly flexible and dynamic economy, but a bit red in tooth and claw for my liking.