1: Which could be determined as pay given the criteria provided? You'll find many perks come outside any package of terms and conditions as if they are not provided or adhered to will lead to the employer being in breach of contract. They certainly won't call them charity as this leads to tax issues. You will find these perks can be treated as dividends or if given to someone else entirely they will be discretionary and part of a foundation. Any dividend and redistribution based giving forms the basis of socialism as described by Robert Owen.

You can't just say these things aren't socialism because they don't sound like it to you. The basic tenets are in black and white and cover those very things you dispute.

"I reference "large scale" because that is what most socialists want."

What puts you in a position to speak for socialists? do you have examples. I've quoted Robert Owen who is the grandaddy of modern socialism. He was very much at factory and local community level. Thomas Spence (who was the only philosopher to have their works banned in the UK) spoke for the peasant class/workers and he is the originator of localism. Large scale socialists are as rare as hens teeth and are usually associated with dictators rather than the rump.

Ah you are talking about scrounging and coddling. this is talk that usually emerges from people that were either born wealthy, are completely sociopathic or had a whole lot of luck in their rise to the top. Usually the American right wing or the British 1066 establishment.

Several things here.
a) You need a safety net - markets will crash. Money put aside for a rainy day help the economy recover. That means increasing discretionary income for the lowest members of society and reducing it from those tha benefitted most from the boom time.
b) NAIRU is fundamental to capitalism. It does not function unless there is a set amount of people unemployed. If all the unemployed died tomorrow then NAIRU would mean that employed people lost their jobs because the market cannot sustain it. As NAIRU is necessary you should not castigate the unemployed as without them you would not be as well off as you are. as such you should provide them with a decent means of living. That means far higher than starvation levels.
c) There was no queue in the prelife you could join to get wealthy parents. You were born where you were born. And it is highly likely you will die where you were born. Currently a grand total of zero people in the fortune 500 were born into poor families. The US has the second lowest social movement in the OECD behind only The UK (ofc).

I'm afraid 10 minutes on Wiki just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. I spent years studying this stuff from childhood.

2: Militias just don't work. There hasn't been a single instance in history where they have been a positive thing. militia pretty much always equates with atrocity.

3: "while some property can't be moved, people can and do move from place to place. Some people even own multiple homes," Yes that is one of the fundamental problems of dealing with real property. "Owning a piece of land means you can build whatever you like on top of it." Ah most states have restriction on this. It has been one of the biggest beef of Gypsies/Romanies who actually are quite large land owners but not only are they not allowed to build on it but are not allowed to park on it.

again for economics we have an interesting case provided by Leon Walras who was an early member of the Austrian School said that all land should be nationalised, all taxes scrapped and the state/government raise revenue through rent. The Georgists added physiocratic elements to this and the AFRLs such as Rothbard just threw a hissy fit.

You might want to look up the history of Monopoly as it was produced as satire by a group of Marxists (Marxism is not socialism but rule by the protelariat - it has closer links to feudalism than socialism as it is based on class distinction and distribution by power)

I was talkng about the reasons the crash took so long to recover not the cause of the crash.

4: Less than 1% of all money in existance is in paper form and that paper belongs to the issuer not the current holder.

A cryptocurrency can only be described as an asset if people believe it has value. This is called socialised value and is, interestingly, a form of socialism. If the state decides it has no value or does not recognise the socialized value then it is unable to tax it unless there is a transferal to the state issued fiat. This is why the SEC, FSA and various governments are tying themselves into knots,

What you are talking about regarding wallets and I assume keys is control over an asset. Control does not amount to ownership unless an agreed (that means socialised again) piece of legislature says it is.

Money is important to the government at the moment as the economic model primarily used is monetism. That amounts to conrolling the temperature of the economy by controlling the amount of money in existance. Private Scrip and Cryptocurrencies make this impossible. That is the reason that DLPs are revolutionary - they socialise the economy. {Do you see all this socialism cropping up?)

What you call semantics I call education and I'm sorry if it gets in the way. I got mine through years of working in finance business and with lawyers. It is stuff you have to learn as you will find that you will get laughed at and have zero credibility otherwise. again let me state that at no point did I say that real property was the cause of the 98 collapse but was the cause of the extra long recession and stagnation.

You do seem to be fixated over money which is simply the oil that makes capitalism work. You need to look at other parts too. The engine, the body, the passenger compartment and the the road it rides on.

The fun part that you should take home with you though is that non-state fiat currencies that are fundamentally decentralised are a form of socialism.