My definition is something like this: Taxes for running the government, public works, infrastructure, etc, are like a fee we pay for those services. Welfare, on the other hand, goes to individuals who perform no services and earn none of it. That's socialism.
Welfare is just one form or aspect of socialism. Socialism is an economic principle, not merely "people getting free stuff." Obviously the Free-Rider argument is one of many unflattering things about Socialism, but it isn't consigned only to that limited view. A system of taxation against private capital in order to fund public programs is 100% socialist. The military is socialist. Public libraries are socialist. Welfare is socialist. Police departments are socialist. Fire departments are socialist. Medicare, Social Security, etc... all run by Socialist principles.
So, again, perhaps your argument isn't that socialism is in and of itself bad, but when expanded too far it can be problematic... which I would of course agree with.
The idea is that you pay a nominal fee in order to use services. The problem is what happens when some people don't pay in to the services and not only use the services they didn't pay in to, but use the services far in excess than the people who actually did pay for the services? Therein lies the fundamental problem with a system that only uses socialism.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine