Granted, this experiment is taken extreme and limited, so there is bound to be errors. But I do find the principles agreeable.

0) I would not suppose this is an axiom, or based theorem (of microeconomics study). But this is what happens with public goods: They cause market failure without regulation.

1) The poor can be legislated to have the basic life care, such as healthcare and public infrastructure. On the reverse, the rich can be legislated to lose monopoly power but not the wealth accumulated so far. The public debt will have to be calculated again, but I do believe any proper-attitude government can do this.

2) This is a rather "absolute" argument, but again, more like a reflection of the first point. I'd say the state open up enterprises to hire the unemployed in at minimum wage for some labor works, such as textiles or agriculture. This may sound bullshit to "private rights", but it's probably the best compromise to eliminate "free riders" (by having everyone do some work and contribute something).

3) Taxation and Government Spending in a nutshell.

4) I just cannot explain this, other than accept it by silence.

5) History lesson of communist nation failure in a nutshell.

All in all, I do believe in the social safety net socialism aim to provide. But once the social safety net is constructed, it's time to start operating on capitalism because capitalism commands people to continually work and improve themselves (if not absorbed and molten-mixed into the labor system). Then at the higher points where capitalism start to plague by draining all wealth, it's time to apply some more socialism and prevent people from monopolizing the market.

But yeah this is bullshit optimistic dream.