You do realize that "socialism" as you put it necessarily requires that some part of all things be held in reserve from their rightful owners for the purposes of being freely given to others according some rationale determined by those charged with their distribution. I'm fairly certain, actually, that you do realize this. That all "things" are representative of our effort, leveraged to whatever degree we can manage, has been firmly established by greater minds than mine. But to put it another way, our efforts take time which, when stripped of all of life's superfluities, is ultimately all that we have; our lives which have been granted to us and the time in which to live them. So could we fairly say then, since our lives cannot be lived outside of time, that time spent equals life spent? If so could we then go on to conclude that our lives, spent taking the time to fashion things though our efforts, are in fact the currency which is being exchanged?
Well, if that's the case, here's what your socialism sounds like to me. Your socialism requires that some part of my life be held in reserve from myself, its rightful owner, for the purposes of being given to another according to some arbitrary rationale determined by those chosen to be charged with their distribution. I've added a few choice words, but the point is, socialism seeks to manipulate the very lives of the people whom it afflicts but not those whom it benefits. In a democracy it is the ultimate device of influence generation, for no one wants to be afflicted. To say that benefits, that is to say other people's lives, are to be given out beneficently is naive. Humans being such as they are will exercise favouritism somewhere, somehow, someway. The result of this arrangement, as history has shown in the cases of various European countries who have tried this, is that society will become a small group of designated distributors, their beneficiaries who attain such status by "toeing-the-line", and everybody else whose lives are being used as currency. It's a monarchy without a king; a feudal despotism without titles of nobility; a fascism without a figurehead to bear the fasces; an insipid slave state founded upon man's pretensions; in all cases a tyranny of statism, or really just tyranny alone.
That popular governments are to administrate programs of beneficence for the relief of some part of the citizenry is not the point. Such governments who do so with the consent of the governed,---the consent of the governed!, here is puzzle piece which socialism cannot fit!,---are beyond rightful reproach. I've wrestled with the distinction between rights and privileges for beyond a decade now, and thus far I have determined that two rights exist, Mr. Jefferson labeled a third which is, in my mind, a result of the combination of the other two. In the absence of all men, within Time yet without Eternity, two things are mine: Life and Liberty. These two things should be eternally inviolate, or as we Americans have come to believe, are inalienable. Socialism, seeking to suspend the latter in order to spend the former, can be safely described as wholly un-American. That government should maintain programs directed toward the support of its citizens is without argument. That it should not compromise the core of its very existence to do so should be likewise without argument.
I'm nearly finished reading a novel within whose story arch the author editorializes at considerable length about the political and social convulsions of France and of the French in the late 18th century and the first half of the 19th. I find it truly ironic that the American progressive of today is the post-Napoleonic French monarchist of yesterday; they want all the safety, security, privilege, and fortune of the central state, wrapped in the ideals and retaining some of the institutions of La Révolution, while compromising, and as such diminishing and ultimately discarding, those very ideals in order to secure these ends.
