1: Exactly, but benefits like the ones you listed given for a position of employment are pay. They are part of an agreement determined at the time of hiring or added in a later renegotiation of terms. If you aren't employed and receiving benefits that were not part of any employment, that's called charity.

I reference "large scale" because that is what most socialists want. They do not come to me and suggest a small community be allowed to pool their resources; I have absolutely no problem with that, and I would probably support it. No, the socialists usually suggest that we tax large portions of the population to pay for other parts of the population because capitalism must be overturned. And, as was one of the points of my blog, that disrupts our economy in profound ways, usually causing more harm than good. The reason I defend capitalism and deconstruct socialism is because there is a group of people(which I don't believe includes you, by the way) suggesting that socialism is a viable replacement for capitalism. And I disagree with that assertion specifically.

This concept of socialism being worse as a survival strategy applies to small scale as well, just to a much lesser extent, thus being manageable. If someone is contributing less than they consume, they hurt the position of the rest of the people contributing. If these people actually could be contributing more, but simply don't care to because they don't need to, then that's a problem. They are being coddled. This absolutely does not apply to every single unproductive person, but the uncomfortable truth is it usually applies to a very large portion.

Now, admittedly, my knowledge of tithe barns is limited to what I read on wikipedia in the past few minutes... but from what I can tell, they aren't even socialist in nature. Tithe has always been rationalized in my mind as a combination of payment for a church's services and charity. It is not simple redistribution, and falls under a religious philosophy dictating a person's responsibilities to his community.

2: Gross, please don't...

Yeah, this is getting quite far off topic. I'm not even an expert on economics, and I'm even less of an expert on military configurations of different nations throughout history.But please reread two of my statements...

"I think that a national military is a good thing to have, but I don't think it really needs to be funded through our current system"
This was a suggestion it could be FUNDED differently. Not that I thought it would be a good idea to just dissolve the military entirely and only have state militia.

"Furthermore, a free country generally operates much better when citizens are capable of protecting themselves and their neighbors, with the military being formed from these citizens in times of escalating conflict with other nations."
This is what America fundamentally started with, to the best of my knowledge. A militia organized of civilians that could take up arms whenever necessary. But again, I'm not incredibly well read on this subject, so perhaps this impression is misinformed.

3: Hmm... the problem is that while some property can't be moved, people can and do move from place to place. Some people even own multiple homes, and many more work at locations under the employment of someone who owns or rents land from someone else. And we are more than capable of keeping track of who owns what, and buying or selling however we wish. Owning a piece of land means you can build whatever you like on top of it. The distinction between land and other kinds of property isn't much beyond the pragmatic uses for it. I feel rather silly trying to explain this, because both of us clearly believe our positions are rather self evident with enough thought...

Consider the simple example of the Monopoly board game. You can buy and sell property, even to each other. The fact that it is anchored in place somewhere on the board does not change this, nor do you even need to be physically at the property to buy it if it goes up for auction. This is a children's game, and even it understands that property can be exchanged between parties.

I have a much different understanding of the crash of 2008. It was not caused by property being immovable. It was caused by the government mandate forcing banks to give out loans to people who might not qualify. This caused a large number of very high risk mortgages being mixed in with normal ones and written off as normal risk. Then, when vast swathes of the mortgages were defaulted on, the housing market crashed. I'm currently expecting a similar thing to happen with educational systems in the future because the exact same thing is happening; college students are being issued loans to get useless degrees that will not give them any reasonable chance of paying back the loan used to acquire the degree. Arguably, the crash has already started, and general college degrees are worth much less than they used to be when it comes to earning potential.

4: Fiat money is a concept, while a physical piece of money is... a physical object. You can definitely own a physical object, even if that object might someday become entirely worthless. Cryptocurrency is a concept, but a specific piece of crypto currency is a digital asset. It's harder to explain to someone how you can own a digital asset with no real world analog(unlike digital banking, with at the numbers at least representing real world currency), but the fact that one person has access to the crypto wallet while others do not at least represents ownership in practice. The fact that the government wants to tax literally everything does not affect my philosophical position on this, and I would even support a complete overhaul of our tax system to be more economically friendly and ethical.

Yes, taxation is the government making citizens pay the institution money. Money is an abstract representation of value used to exchange goods and services. You actually don't need government to have money, it can be whatever people agree upon among themselves, and some people have argued that the government managing the standard medium of exchange causes more problems than it solves. I think there actually might be some law against creating other widely used forms of legal tender... but this does not change the philosophical concept that money as a standard medium of exchange does not require any central authority. Those who believe it does are, in my opinion, fundamentally misunderstanding the essence of currency. Which frustrates me, because it makes people more likely to think that the government must be directly involved with the economy when I don't think it should be messing with inflation or taxing the same dollar multiple times while under the same person's control.

I find all this splitting hairs with semantics rather counterproductive in the grand scheme of things, and was exactly why I wrote an entire blog titled "No, Money is Not Theft". Because those are the kinds of destinations where this twisted logic leads; thinking that land which can't be moved somehow caused an economic collapse and that the mere possession of something is an act of theft against the rest of the world. I find these to be absurd ideas that do not offer any workable system, only seeking to deconstruct an at least workable existing system while deliberately ignoring the far greater pitfalls added by the theoretical system. It's extremely easy to theorize about what might work if everything lines up perfectly, but it's something else entirely to make something work as it was designed on paper.