things can be in "possession" of the state while the "ownership" is retained by the people, just like corporations do not truly "own" stuff but all the things "in possession" of a corporation are owned by its shareholders.

I would accept that technicality, but in real life, the state effectively owns everything within its borders. Citizens are effectively "club members", with all the rights and responsibilities thereof.

the plight of the individual

Individuals are responsible for creating their own plights. No one is 'owed' a plight, especially those who did nothing but suck up resources for the first 10 or 20 years of their membership. Looked at another way, it could be argued that they owe an enormous debt for their very existence. To their direct caregivers, yes, but they're also living on "club grounds" under a provisional exception to their duty to provide value in exchange.

Now, I can see the validity of other forms of living arrangements. Living tribally can work - when the population in a given area is low enough. Then you need no real borders, because resources in the area are sufficient, and replenished faster than they're used up. We unfortunately no longer live in that world. Whole world is sliced and diced, mapped and claimed. There are very few places one can exist without a country membership. Pressure is getting so great that some of the cracks appear to be threatening the whole system. So maybe we will get back to that tribal/alternate way of living, or tech advances will effectively solidify control over the masses à la manière de Brave New World.

I guess I'm arguing for "what is" rather than what should or could be, but maybe I'm blurring the edges a bit.