Say, some resources, like oil, should belong to everybody, and everyone should have a vote on how to use them. Fine. Suppose you have that vote - you are a shareholder of Worldwide Oil, Inc. Where do you find oil? Where would your company get money to build an oil well? Are you willing to participate in shareholders' meetings? Who's going to pay employees? Are you really interested in working on this? If not, wouldn't it be better for you to sell your share to a person who knows what to do with it, and has the resources necessary to start the business, so that you could buy a share in a well-established company instead? Can shareholders of Worldwide Oil, Inc. decide for a split-up into American Oil, Inc., Asian Oil, Inc., and so on, to make it more manageable? You see where I am getting it. We might end up with something that is almost like what we have now.
Thanks so much for pointing this out. I really wish socialist-minded people could understand that: ownership is not a static process, it's dynamic. If you give something to someone, he might very well not know what to do with it and then he will sell it to someone else. In the end, stuff end up belonging to people who are the most willing to own them: those who are willing to pay, notably. This is true for resources and means of production. Giving them to people on an equal basis would only lead to a unstable economic situation which would rapidly end up back to the current situation again, at the cost of having confiscated stuff initially just to eventually fail to change anything.