Socialism in any of it's definitions can't be achieved without some degree of authoritarianism. How else would you redestribute or control the wealth, goods or means of production if a smaller group of people disagreed with the larger group? By forced compliance by the government. 

That also points out how libertarian socialism contradicts itself and it's an oxymoron. It can't exist or be implemented without a government or group of people enforcing the will of the people on the people who disagree with the majority. 

I actually feel universities are a chore :P Dropped out of university majoring physics. Went directly into training to become an IT network specialist. Best decision of my life.

It's not really socialist though. Because in a socialist society there wouldn't be any individuals with massive amounts of individual wealth on which an estate tax could be levvied. A complex redistributive tax system is really more like social-democratism. Since it allows for private, individual ownership of production/land and significant accumulation of wealth.

If someone wanted to impose socialism on a currently capitalist society they would simply confiscate all private wealth and either distribute it among the masses or nationalise it, and not wait until you died.

I've commonly been labeled both a socialist and an anarchist over the years to the point that I've just accepted and embraced both labels, and that makes me what I suppose might be considered an extreme libertarian socialist, so here's my persepctive on that:

To my way of thinking, there's no contradiction between these two concepts. You seem to be embracing a view of libertarianism as something that's opposed to government at a conceptual level and I think that's where your confusion comes from. The anarchist opposes AUTHORITY (as in to say unequal social relations), not GOVERNMENT. For me, it's not about whether government exists or is sufficiently "limited" or not, but rather about who controls it. The important thing about socialist organization for me is that it be democratically controlled at all levels. Here's a real-world example that I've experienced:

Do you remember about five and a half years back when there was a movement called Occupy (originally known specifically as Occupy Wall Street) here in the Western world? Well the internal structure thereof was a good, if small-scale, example of the kind of way that personally I think society as a whole should be ideally run. The movement was launched by an anarchist anti-advertising group and that was reflected in the way the encampments were organized. Every evening the people in each encampment would gather for an event called the General Assembly wherein we would discuss, debate, and decide on what our policies and actions would be going forward. We would divide up into small groups so that we could have practical discussions, and then each small group would select one person to state our agreed-upon views to the larger group. Using the principles of intersectionalism, women and people of color were given priority and would speak first because our voices were the most marginalized in the larger society. The encampment adopted a policy or plan only if more than 95% of its participants agreed on it, so it was very much democracy by consensus, not simple majority rule. Everyone was involved directly in the decision-making is the point I'm trying to make here. There were no politicians. And because we used consensus-based decision-making, even the small share of people who might not have agreed with the rest's decision pretty invariably respected it and went along with it nonetheless because they knew that they had had a meaningful say in the process.

In terms of our internal economics and cultural life, the general principle was that we shared the necessities. Permanent residents of the encampment were given free food, free shelter, free health care, access to our makeshift library, etc. Our resources were crude because we were relatively small groups (typically ranging from 3,000 at the low end to 20,000 or 30,000 at the peak per encampment) operating on a shoestring budget rooted in crowdfunding. We also had free cultural performances and events ranging from plays of sorts to poetry readings and musical performances to our own semi-official newspaper and comic books. You could call that a socialist, or even arguably communist, type of economic and cultural organization since it was very heavily based on sharing resources. That's what we freely decided on. It was just the most practical way to keep the project going and also reflected much of the founding people's ethos.

What we DIDN'T have were things like police forces. We didn't really need them. We had rules (as discussed above), but because the decision-making process involved everyone and was consensus-based, the process was broadly thought of as a kind of contract development. People agreed to our terms actively rather than passively and it made everyone more willing to go along with the rules we established even if some didn't actually agree with all of them. That's not to say we didn't have problems from time to time, but they were few and generally were resolved by simply expelling the more troublemaking elements. The boldest thing we had to do was establish a curfew and a rotating night watch after a rape occurred (by an outsider, not a proper resident at that), but that was the closest we came to having a police force and it's hardly the same thing.

The core problem with our structure was the same one that other, larger anarchist societies typically experience: inability to fend off outside attacks. Contrary to popular myth, anarchist societies very rarely collapse or devolve into chaos (in contrast to their Marxist counterparts) and ours didn't either.  But they usually get created amidst a social crisis that diverts the central government's attention and energy elsewhere (like amidst a civil war, for example) and just simply crushed by invasion as soon as the crisis is over. The end of the Occupy encampments was similar. Mayors around the country eventually ordered our encampments dismantled and because we didn't have any armed forces of our own, we were pretty powerless to stop that from happening. The police had guns. We had human chains. Rather an uneven match. In larger-scale communities, anarchists typically create a (democratically-organized) army for the defense of the community, but because they're not conventional armed forces and operate on limited resources, that's never really enough. I don't know what the solution is to that dilemma to be honest. I mean I can think of solutions, but they would violate the principles of anarchism and tend to turn these projects into conventional state-building, thus kind of defeating their purpose. That's why, for me, anarchist socialism is just kind of a moral position that I take. I'm not predicting "the inevitability of communism" or something silly like that.

Anyway, I hope that helps give you a mental picture of how principles of political equality can indeed go hand-in-hand with those of economic equality. The two things naturally go together, in my view. Where the Marxist is willing to use any means to achieve the ends of economic equality, therein lies their problem, by contrast. Their means wind up becoming their ends because power is intoxicating and addicting. But that's why I think it's important that we not embrace the idea that the ends justify the means.

"So yes, more government intervention is more freedom net total."

tell that to the north koreans

That's not intervention, that's dictatorship. See, the key is moderation. For example the amount of government intervention in the US is absolutely laughable and barely does anything to protect its citizens.

That's why the wealth gap is so gigantic and citizens are forced to drink poison water and get fucked over by their employers.

it is not in human nature to practice moderation... which is where all of these socialist ideas fail

as long as the systems are imposed by people, greed will ultimately take over

And that's exactly why you shouldn't haver an agreessive capitalist system in any country either, the only thing you get is few powerful people taking profit of the others just because they have more money, they are greed and nobody put them any kind of limit, at the end is just freedom for a few while the others live like slaves, a good system needs some socialist ideas integrated on them, the more people deny this the slower our civilization is advancing, we need to stop seeing the boogie man in every single idea that resembles something about socialism.

 i would rather that many people have the chance to better themselves than having everyone be forced into a system where they are all made to be slaves so "equality" can prevail

and i am not polarised here, i do realise that there is a need to form a balance between freedom and security/social ideals but i think many people are yearning for a system where we tilt way too for over to the social side without understanding the consequences that entails

you cannt guarantee safety/security and at the same time preserve freedom - they are antithetical to each other

"a good system needs some socialist ideas integrated on them"

edit: i responded to this too hastily and i would agree

"the more people deny this the slower our civilization is advancing

advancing to what?

No one has been able to answer how you create a more progressive government from what we have NOW without the use of a more powerful intervening government. As a result Libertarian socialism is simply a theoretical idea that simply is a thought exercise for idealists.

There is nothing wrong with a progressive government I simply challenge that it can be done without an expanded government.

I simply do not buy such a system outside of a commune or some Occupy wall street camp can exist for overall society simply depending on people acted in the general interest of the collective than themselves.

That perhaps shows my more conservative side about my faith in fellow humans, but I think I am well founded to have a lack of belief.