I agree. But, if that's not "socialsm," why is extended unemployment benefits or bailout of financial markets "socialism." In either case, it limits what individuals can do with their property/capital because the limitation is seen as beneficial to society.
I don't want my neighbor to convert her home into a late-night biker bar. Instead of accepting my personal responsibility to live within my means, and buy sufficient property to buffer myself from my neighbor's use of her property, I take the easy route: public law which prevents my neighbor's full enjoyment of her property *for my benefit*.
The hard route would be my moving out of my home, creating a "buyers market" for a biker (or deaf person) who might appreciate the proximity to a late night biker bar.
Likewise, my money was used to bailout the unemployed and bad investment choices because the stabilization seemed equally beneficial. Instead of me having more money to take advantage of motivated labor and cheap properties, the labor and financial markets were propped up because we (as a society) didn't want that kind of volatility.
You may argue that it's not "real" stability. We'll pay later, etc. But zoning laws and building codes aren't perfect either. When I buy a property with the prospect that I won't have to worry about my neighbor convering her home into a late-night biker bar, someday I'll find myself hoisted upon the same pitard (required to buy unnecessary property zoned for my new commercial ideas.).
Both are based upon the same cost/benefit rationale. That we're a better society for intervening in otherwise "free" markets. Describing one as "socialism" is just (as far as I can tell) a cheap way to denigrate something that isn't seen as valuable. Implying a violation of principle whose violation we accept (even enjoy) every day.
you are confused.
we ALREADY have Unemployment Benefits. eliminating this (admittedly Socialist) program/entitlement would destabilize our system like a motherfucker, so we are pretty much stuck with it, until somebody finds the skill, the will and the way to extract it from the system without touching the sides, and making the buzzer go off.
Unemployment Benefits are socialist, because they are an IMPOSITION by The State upon the employer (who really shouldnt give a squirt of piss if you are unemployed after he fires you) who pays for it.
The State has determined that FORCING the employer to pay into the "trust fund" for unemployment benefits is in The State's Interest (it keeps the unemployed off the welfare rolls, which is what you call Forcing an Externality, in econ-speak) and the Demos agreed, because it cost them nothing, and reduced their exposure to the consequences of failure.
to YOU, the employee, unemployment benefits are a Benefit, to the employer, they are a Cost Of Doing Business, which is imposed on them by The State. without The State's imposition of this program, the employer is VERY unlikely to come up with this plan on his own, since it profits him naught, but costs him plenty, costs which he must pass along to his customers.
increasing unemployment benefits is MORE Socialism, and MORE socialism is the basis for Democratic Socialism's slow creeping advance, and as already established, i do not consider Socialism, nor any other kind of Marxism to be a winning proposition
when The State, with the agreement of the majority of the Demos, determines that some particular rule is in the interests of Society, it is not necessarily Socialist.
Banning the home manufacture of fireworks and explosives is NOT Socialist. it is not an imposition of the states desires, it is a forbidding of a thing which is generally regarded as a hazard to everyone in proximity to your fireworks factory.
prohibiting the sale of alcohol, tobacco and firearms to children is NOT Socialism, it is a prohibition designed for the safety of children who are invariably not responsible enough to make good choices with that stuff.
the heart of Socialism resides in what is
Imposed, not what is forbidden.
in a classical liberal society (like this one) anything which is not expressly forbidden is presumed to be permitted, and The State tries to be very careful with it's Impositions From Authority (hence the great butthurt over the draft, taxes, eminent domain, obamacare, etc...)
you are conflating Prohibitions with Impositions, when they are two VERY different things.