I don't understand your rational. My rational is that people obey ownership laws because the government uses its monopoly on legitimate violence to enforce ownership laws; that even the threat of enforcement is enough to compel obedience 99.9% of the time. Sure, enforcement doesn't explain how the powerful decide which laws will be enforced; the powerful could easily choose to enforce laws that are based upon a conceptual framework like ownership that in the end is nothing more than a "hallucination" as you point out. But when the masses obey that law, they are not obeying the hallucination that the powerful chose to turn into law; the masses are obeying because of the threat of violence, which is very real.

--

--

So, the literal dictionary definition is: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism My paraphrase as "government programs" is a faithful, full paraphrase. Your requirement that people should not have to contribute is not found in any common definition, nor does it make any sense. You would agree, right, that socialism is collective/government ownership, as in the definition above? Do we not have to pay for things we own? Yet you would say that paying makes it not socialist. Paying taxes is precisely what socialism is all about.

--

--