People who claim socialism is about freeing people from the tyranny of employers and landlords seem to have a nearby libertarian bent, but the way they would make things is not libertarian at all.

No. You are entitled to that which you earn, unless there are mitigating circumstances which have been agreed upon socially. You cannot appropriate a portion of finite resources to each infant born into perpetuity.

You all say this, but in my experience, every libertarian has some "socialist" programme that they vehemently believe in.

One of the most libertarian people I know will defend, to his last dying breath, the inefficient and frankly, just horrible at customer service USPS. And, if you dig, you find out it's because, due to the fact that it is the USPS and doesn't compete evenly in the free market, it saves him a tonne of money in shipping costs.

I have attended meetings in deep red west Texas where all of the government-hating "self-sufficient" farmers are seeking government handouts. I was actually in the room when a group of over 100 local farmers were told of a subsidised loan programme, but that it was only available if your average gross INCOME (income, not sales, so the profit you took home from farming) was less than $950k a year, on average, over the last three years.

One gentlemen, MAGA cap and all, stood up and said, and I quote, "So, you're telling us that 95% of us don't qualify?"

I'm in a room with nearly 100 people who make over a million dollars a YEAR, complaining that the government they hate won't subsidise low interest loans (paid for with MY tax money) for them.

These same farmers actually support food stamps, as those help keep food prices (and their profit) artificially high.

So, yeah, search deep into your libertarian soul. There is at least one government programme that you like and will fight to keep going.

No thanks. You are entitled to what your parents give you when you are born. You are not entitled to anyone else's stuff. You could probably have all the rocks you want, though, as nobody works to extract them or make value out of them. So, no gold or diamond rocks for Baby Dave. Also, you can have as much property in Antarctica as you want, but not Manhattan. Society also gives you rights to life, liberty, and your property -- that will be much more valuable to you than what a socialist government might take away from others to give to you.

In our current socialistic democratic republic, we already own many things in common. That's a large part of what government does. It sounds like you are adding to the "commons" and attempting to prorate it for everyone. But, I have no idea how you would "prorate" all the resources to satisfy everyone. If you could come up with a way to do that you would be a very famous person.

It depends on what you include in the "commons." If you include land, it would sure make a mess of society if you tried to equally distribute land to everyone. As soon as a new baby was born, everyone would lose a portion of their land.

A defense of Socialism per se, no, it simply violates the basic tenets of Libertarianism.

However, if a group of people wished to band together, build their own community, and practice socialism solely and only within that community, there would be nothing "unlibertarian" in their decision. (Though I suppose there might be in how they enforce their socialism if that became an issue.)