Socialism also happens naturally. I've met lots of hospitable people that willingly shared goods with me without anything in return but my presence. People also used to kill each over everything. Human beings are complex and do lots of things. The problems are only starting when a society emerges that is too large to selfgovern.
Looks like you put everything that resembles "big government" or "government intervention" under socialism. I wouldn't understand how else you could even remotely think that Keynesianism could be called socialism. Keynes considered himself a capitalist.
One remark. Discussions work much better if you actually tell your opinion and give one or two substantial arguments. Resorting to name dropping doesn't make for an interesting exchange of thoughts.
Neither is willingly exchanging goods the same thing as capitalism. But if you go back so far and claim that some -ism develops naturally, you have to find some similar actions.
Not even talking about that "exchanging goods" (even for money) does also happen in socialism and communism.
It happens naturally but not without force, theft (like murder) happens naturally but not without coercion. The free exchange of goods and service between consenting adults happens without coercion, and naturally.
The problem is most people probably don't agree with your definition of force and theft. I also don't know how you define the natural and why it should matter whether something is natural or not.
Forget the natural part, the important part is coercion. You can't have socialism without coercion and initiation of force, you can have a free market though.
As I already said, most people probably don't share your definition of initiating force and coercion. You provide no reason why those terms should be based only on private property. If you define initiation of force as "initiation of force, except when i'm protecting property", then you can obviously come to the conclusion that you don't initiate force, but you are still initiating force by other peoples definition, unless you can justify to them the assumption in your definition.
You only have a free market without coercion as long as all participants act in good faith. Otherwise you either have to let bad actors get away with whatever they like, in which case you no longer have a market, or else someone has to coerce them into fulfilling their obligations.
> You only have a free market without coercion as long as all participants act in good faith.
No, you have a free market without coercion as long as there is no coercion. If some are acting in bad faith or badly, that's more power to the competition.
Looks like you put everything that resembles "big government" or "government intervention" under socialism. I wouldn't understand how else you could even remotely think that Keynesianism could be called socialism. Keynes considered himself a capitalist.
One remark. Discussions work much better if you actually tell your opinion and give one or two substantial arguments. Resorting to name dropping doesn't make for an interesting exchange of thoughts.