What I am reffering to is the cooperative economy type socialism that involves the workers setting value for inputs to the group by each. If that is not what you are saying then I badly misunderstood this part:
At a macro level that essentially describes all human society from ancient times to the present and is exactly what I meant.
Humans live in groups. They must to survive - as a species anyway. In order for the group to survive each member must behave in a way that positively impacts the survival of the group. Some impact that survival more than others. Thus in my opinion at the grandest scale it seems self evident that some members of a society have more value than others.
That model does not preclude individual freedom, initiative creativity etc. What it does is reward those behaviors that impact the group positively. At some point the impact of some behaviors are such that the continued survival of the group is impacted. Thus we have laws which attempt to control behavior.
I suppose what I was trying to say is that current society does not set the penalties for various negative behaviors at a high enough level nor does it permit the members of the social order to exact those penalties at appropriate times.
How modern society got to the point where its members are prohibited from protecting themselves or their property and all in the last 150 years or so is a mystery to me.
Some might argue we need the restrictions to prevent chaos but then those same people told us there'd be blood in the streets if we allowed every day average Joes to carry a concealed firearm each and every day.
They were wrong and I believe so is society regarding the elimination of criminals caught in the act.
I suppose a bar needs to be set regarding when one member of society can eliminate another. I think in our case the bar is just set too high.
Like they say in Texas - "Some people just need killin'". The conundrum lies in deciding who.
