For what it's worth, I passed through your position on the way to where I am now. You would like to put a minimal floor under people -- which does at least seem minimally humane. I now have several problems with this view, of which I will sketch the two principal ones.

First, put a floor under people and a surprising number of them will lie on that floor and complain about how uncomfortable and unfair it is. The number of these people will gradually grow and the amenities of the floor will gradually grow -- along with the size of the state required to maintain the apparatus.

Second, and more importantly, when the state decides its duty is protect every citizen (or now, perhaps -- even every person) from the consequences of his or her own actions, the state inevitably loses interest in the preservation of individual rights. As Rousseau said -- the state has the right to "force citizens to be free." The state becomes unlimited in its scope.

While both of these are slippery slope arguments, the historical record backs them up. I do not reject your position out of hand however, and would be interested in any proposals you might have for avoiding these pitfalls. Charles Murray proposed a minimum income a few years ago. Interesting.

You may call your position socialism, but I doubt that many of the socialists I knew would have recognized it as such. Can you put it on a placard? That might help...