Stop hating on Bernie Sanders already! Also, the difference between my views and literal socialism

So, I've been noticing the green community hating on Sanders more and more. Maybe part of it is because they're way to the left of Sanders and myself, and are literal socialists whereas I'm a more mixed economy capitalist, but some of these criticisms of Sanders are getting ridiculous. Today he bought a lake house in Vermont for like $600,000. The actual socialists are trying to crucify him for it, acting like he's a member of the bourgeoisie and that it's too much.

I'll be the first to say this country has problems with income and wealth distribution. I'll be the first to say that these are endemic to the capitalist system. But maybe this system has benefits, and maybe some level of inequality is a good thing. I don't necessarily think people should only have what they absolutely need. I do believe in higher standards of living, being able to acquire luxuries. My problem with the current system has to do with the coercive and exploitative power relationships this system causes. It's the fact that the poor are denied resources to coerce them to work. It's that people are deprived the basics they need while those who exploit them make millions on their backs. It's that people don't have a de facto choice to opt out of this system.

Assuming we can ensure everyone a decent standard of living no matter what for everyone in a society, assuming that we can free people from the coercive elements associated with capitalism, resource denial, and wage slavery, and assuming that work relationships are truly voluntary, I have no issues with people living some level of luxury. I even think it can be a good thing. We should strive for higher standards of living. It's not only good for our well being, but the motivation higher standards of living provide is what will continue to motivate people to work. I have no problem with carrots existing in our capitalist system for motivational purposes. I just want to remove the sticks.

Bernie Sanders also lives a much lower standard of living than most members of congress. He is known for walking to work, flying coach on airplanes, and just generally being fairly down to earth. He lives more like a member of the upper middle class than the elite. He has some money, which he uses for some luxuries, but he doesn't have the extravagant standard of living of other members of congress. He's not raking in hundreds of thousands giving speeches to Wall Street, or anything like that, and he's not buying homes in a way to deny them from others or exploit them for rent seeking purposes. So give him a break already.

Honestly, in my ideal system, there would still be somewhat significant levels of income inequality between the rich and the poor. My ideal system would look more like "what Americans think inequality looks like" vs "what it actually is" in this video. This is because my ideal solutions to income inequality don't involve socialism or things like maximum wages as much as they involve generous social programs like universal healthcare and basic income. I would not change the economic system from the ground up if I can help it, I would instead rely heavily on income/wealth redistribution in fair, relatively painless ways, which would help raise the poor up, and leave the rich still rich, but less rich than they otherwise would be. If a rich guy earning $10 million a year pays 50-60% in taxes, guess what, he's still going to have 4-5 million left over. And I'm okay with that. I'm not trying to totally undermine everything about our economic system in a way that reduces freedom and leaves people to the whims of the state to determine how much they should have in a maximal sense. I just want to ensure those at the bottom have enough to live comfortably on, and are freer than they are. Basic income would greatly reduce income inequality, but it would not eliminate it. As I said, it would make income inequality closer to our current perceptions of it, rather than the current realities.

In my ideal worldview, the poor would be much better off, and people like Bernie Sanders could still afford to buy lake homes. What these socialists want is the complete end of capitalism, and a system that would punish and seize the property of anyone who has too much. Their system would say, "this is the maximum anyone should have, you can't have more." This is too punitive, and would destroy a lot of freedom we Americans take for granted. There should, as long as labor is as necessary as it is, be significant amounts of differences in living standards to motivate people. And in transitioning to a potential post work society, we should be able to all live well. What these guys are for is exactly why socialism is so unwelcome and hated in the US. It would be freedom destroying, having a heavy handed authority determine the maximum anyone should have. We need to focus on raising the minimums, not limiting the maximums, even if the maximum goes down a little to raise the minimum. The difference here is that my lowering of the maximum is coincidental and would still leave the most well off very well off. I feel like I could justify such a thing on utilitarian philosophy. I cannot necessarily justify limiting the maximum in a firm way as a matter of principle.

That being said, I don't hate Sanders for buying a new home. You got screwed out of the primary. You at least deserve this. Enjoy it. And for everyone else, I hope I adequately explained my difference in views between myself and literal socialists. I don't hate the fact that others have more than me, especially if they work hard for it. I just want a society where the bottom is better off materially and freer to live their own lives the way the most well off among us currently take for granted.