“I want a generous welfare state. I want to abolish poverty. I want peace. I want forgiveness. I want high social trust. And I want strong relationships between the citizenry,” that would piss people off.

Probably because in your statement is a moral contradiction. There will not be peace if people attempt to “abolish property.” That has never been the case historically and never will be the case in the future, because any complete abolition of property will require violence or the threat of violence to capture the property that is desired to be “abolished.”

Many “Christian Democratic Socialists” are under the erroneous idea that if property is taken under the mandate of a violent majority, rather than a violent minority, it is therefore “peaceful.” The only way that property is ever “abolished” peacefully is if it is done so voluntarily without the threat or use of violence. But that will certainly not happen in the US or any other modern liberal state.

Just because a gang takes property rather than an individual doesn’t make the action of the gang any more moral. The democratic consensus of an action does not automatically bestow the action with righteousness.

If Elizabeth or any other socialist wishes to abolish property she and they should begin with their own. All the “Bernie bros” should be appalled by the hypocrisy of millionaire socialists like Bernie extolling the virtue of property abolishment and state distribution of income and labor. Elizabeth can begin abolishing property by abolishing her own to me if she wishes. I assure you I will not distribute it out of superficial self interest, but use it for charitable purposes.